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
Chapter Five: Nation-State, Region, or City 228
1 Nationalism and the “Chinese Style” in Architecture…………………………….229
1.1 Making the “Chinese Style” in Architecture……………………………...230
1.2 Attitudes towards the Nationalistic “Chinese Style” of Architecture……..234
2 SU Gin Djih (徐敬直): A Nationalistic Perspective outside China………………241
2.1 Su’s Nationalistic Ideal……………………………………………………242
2.2 The Absence of Hong Kong………………………………………………246
3 CHANG Chao Kang (张肇康): A Regionalist Approach…………………………249
3.1 A Comparison between Chang and Liang………………………………...250
3.2 Hong Kong in Chang’s Regionalist Perspective………………………….255
4 FAN Wen Zhao (范文照): From “Chinese style” to “International Style”……….259
4.1 A Radical Turnabout from “Chinese Style” to “International Style”……..261
4.2 Designing the “International Style” in Hong Kong……………………….263
5 CHU Pin (朱彬): From Nationalism to Urbanism………………………………..269
5.1 From Shanghai Sun Company to Hong Kong Man Yee Building………..270
5.2 An Urbanism Contribution to Hong Kong’s Cityscape…………………...274
6 LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受): Beyond Stylistic Paradox…………………………….278
6.1 Bank of China Buildings in Shanghai and Site Problems………………...281
6.2 Wah Yan College Chapel in Hong Kong and Climatic Challenges……….284
7 Summary………………………………………………………………………….292

Conclusion 294
1 Hong Kong Architectural History………………………………………………...297
2 Mainland-Hong Kong Architectural Connections………………………………...299
3 A Bifurcated History………………………………………………………………300

Appendix 303
Sixty-seven Migrant Architects Chronology………………………………………..303

References 376

vii
 List of Figures

Fig. 1 A Bifurcated History of Modern Architecture in China after 1949…………… 6

Fig. 2 Tree of Architecture …………………………………………………………..25
Fig. 3 Network and Rhizome ………………………………………………………..25
Fig. 4 Central Places Distribution in Qing China ……………………………………27
Fig. 5 China’s Railway Development Proposed by Dr. Sun Yat-sen ………………..28
Fig. 6 New Emerged Urban Types in Modern China ………………………………..28
Fig. 7 Hong Kong: a City of Refuge…………………………………………………35
Fig. 8 Interviewing the Migrant Architects and Their Relatives in Hong Kong……..41
Fig. 9 Systematic Collection of Data………………………………………………...41
Fig. I-1 Zhang’s Book, 1910…………………………………………………………53
Fig. I-2 Liang Si Cheng, Beijing, 1930s……………………………………………..53
Fig. I-3 Huang Zuo Shen and Le Corbusier, Paris c1936……………………………53
Fig. I-4 Suzhou Industrial School, 1923……………………………………………..53
Fig. I-5 The Society of Chinese Architects, Annual Meeting, Shanghai, 1933………53
Fig. I-6 The Sixty-seven Migrant Architects…………………………………………63
Fig. I-7 Native Place Analysis………………………………………………………..65
Fig. I-8 Educational Background Analysis I…………………………………………67
Fig. I-9 Educational Background Analysis II ………………………………………..68
Fig. I-10 Educational Background Analysis III ……………………………………. 68
Fig. II-1 The Greater Shanghai Projects, 1927……………………………………….72
Fig. II-2 Government Projects by Chinese Architects in Nanjing……………………72
Fig. II-3 Practice Distribution Analysis………………………………………………78
Fig. II-4 Republican Mainland-Hong Kong Architectural Relations………………...78
Fig. II-5 The Move to the Shanghai Area, 1920s-1930s……………………………..81
Fig. II-6 The Retreat to the Inland Area, late 1930s………………………………….82
Fig. II-7 The Migration to Hong Kong, late 1940s…………………………………..83
Fig. II-8 The Migrant Architects in Hong Kong……………………………………..86
Fig. II-9 Three Partners of KC&Y…………………………………………………...91
Fig. II-10 Selected Works of KC&Y in Mainland China…………………………….96
Fig. II-11 Kwan Kinship Co-operation………………………………………………96
Fig. II-12 Kwan in Taiwan (office building, 1955)…………………………………..96
Fig. II-13 Yang in Mainland China (Peace Hotel, 1951)……………………………..96
Fig. II-14 Chu in Hong Kong (Man Yee Building, 1954)……………………………96
Fig. II-15 LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受, 1904-1991)…………………………………….97
Fig. II-16 Bank of China Head Office Building, Shanghai 1935……………...106, 288
Fig. II-17 Luke at the AA School, London 1930……………………………………106
Fig. II-18 Luke Cheuk Man…………………………………………………………106
Fig. II-19 House in Hau Fung Lane, Ship Street, Wanchai…………………………106
Fig. II-20 Luke’s Sketch of a Bank…………………………………………………106
Fig. II-21 Bank of China Buildings in Shanghai, Suzhou, Nanjing, and Qingdao (by
Luke, 1930s)………………………………………………………………………...107
Fig. II-22 Luke’s Self-house, Dah Hsia Villa, Shanghai 1935-36…………………..107
Fig. II-23 House for T V Soong, Chongqing 1937-………………………………...107
Fig. II-24 Certificate to Practice in Taiwan, 1948…………………………………..107
Fig. II-25 Luke’s designs in Hong Kong, 1950s-1960s…………………………….108

viii
Fig. III-1 The Rise of the Chinese after 1949……………………………………….127
Fig. III-2 Foundation Members of the HKSA, 1956………………………………..128
Fig. III-3 Presidents of the HKSA (HKIA), 1956-1979…………………………….128
Fig. III-4 AP and RSE Statistics, 1991……………………………………………...135
Fig. III-5 Architect or Engineer:
Professional Identification of the Migrant Architects..…………………...135
Fig. III-6 AA Membership Composition, in 1949 vs. in 1956……………………...141
Fig. III-7 Members Present in the 1956 Meeting…………………………………...142
Fig. III-8 Society Membership Composition, in 1949 vs. in 1956………………….142
Fig. III-9 The First Council of HKSA, 1956………………………………………..143
Fig. III-10 KWOK Tun-Li (郭敦礼, 1927- )………………………………………..144
Fig. III-11 SZETO Wai (司徒惠, 1913-1991)………………………………………145
Fig. III-12 OUYANG Chao (欧阳昭, ?- )…………………………………………..147
Fig. IV-1 Industrial growth in Kwun Tong, 1957-1991…………………………….159
Fig. IV-2 Private Building Development, 1949-1979………………………………159
Fig. IV-3 Shanghai St. John’s U. Professors and Students
in the Architectural Firm of Eric Cumine, Hong Kong 1957…………….172
Fig. IV-4 Architectural Co-operation, So Uk Estate, 1957………………………….172
Fig. IV-5 Architectural Competition:
Gymnasium at Kowloon Diocesan Boy’s School, 1951…………………..172
Fig. IV-6 Client Classification in Post-war Hong Kong ……………………………174
Fig. IV-7 The Public Sector: Migrant Architects as AO Professionals …………….176
Fig. IV-8 The Private Sector I: Textitle Factories by Migrant Architects ………….179
Fig. IV-9 The Private Sector II: Banks by Migrant Architects ……………………..180
Fig. IV-10 The Private Sector III: Composite Buildings by Migrant Architects …...181
Fig. IV-11 The Private Sector IV: Composite Buildings by Migrant Architects …...182
Fig. IV-12 The Private Sector V: Hotels by Migrant Architects…………………….183
Fig. IV-13 The Private Sector VI: Villas by Migrant Architects……………………184
Fig. IV-14 The Private Sector VII: Apartments by Migrant Architects I …………..185
Fig. IV-15 The Private Sector VIII: Apartments by Migrant Architects II …………186
Fig. IV-16 The Private Sector IX: Apartments by Migrant Architects III ………….187
Fig. IV-17 The Private Sector X: Apartments by Migrant Architects IV ………...188
Fig. IV-18 The Private Sector XI: Theaters by Migrant Architects ………………...189
Fig. IV-19 The Overlapped Sector I: WONG Hong-Yuen (黄匡原) as Private AA .195
Fig. IV-20 The Overlapped Sector II: AO Commissions by G D Su ………………196
Fig. IV-21 The Overlapped Sector III: Public Housing…………………………….197
Fig. IV-22 The Overlapped Sector IV: Co-operative Housing ……………………..198
Fig. IV-23 The Overlapped Sector V: Co-operative Schools by Migrant Architects.199
Fig. IV-24 The Overlapped Sector VI:
Co-operative Schools & Churches by Migrant Architects ……………..200
Fig. IV-25 The Overlapped Sector VII:
Other Co-operative Projects by Migrant Architects ……………………201
Fig. IV-26 Kwan Lung Lau Estate in Kennedy Town, 1964………………………..224
Fig. IV-27 New Asian College, Farm Road Kowloon 1956………………………...224
Fig. IV-28 Chung Chi College, Hong Kong 1954; New Territories 1956…………..224
Fig. IV-29 The Wong Kiang Dam, Guangdong Province 1948…………………….225
Fig. IV-30 Master Plan and Architectural Design of the CUHK Campus, 1967……225
Fig. IV-31 LEE Young On (李杨安, 1902-1980)…………………………………...226

ix
Fig. IV-32 North Point Methodist Church Buildings by LEE Young On…………...226
Fig. IV-33 Architects and Client
on the Site of the North Point Methodist Church, 1961………………...226
Fig. IV-34 Queen Elizabeth II Youth Centre, Mongkok 1953………………………226
Fig. V-1 Missionary Building at the St. John’s University, Shanghai 1890s……….237
Fig. V-2 Nationalist Government Buildings in the “Chinese Style”………………..237
Fig. V-3 Liang Si Cheng’s Theory on Evolution of Structural System……………..237
Fig. V-4 Simplified “Chinese Style” Architecture…………………………………..237
Fig. V-5 SU Gin-Djih (徐敬直, 1906-?)…………………………………………....241
Fig. V-6 Teachers’ Clubs, Taiwan 1960s……………………………………………248
Fig. V-7 Central Museum, Nanjing 1935…………………………………………...248
Fig. V-8 Central Agricultural Experimental Bureau, Nanjing 1933………………...248
Fig. V-9 CHANG Chao Kang (张肇康, 1922-1992)……………………………….249
Fig. V-10 Vernacular Architecture as Main Subjects……………………………….257
Fig. V-11 Guo Mo Ruo’s Residence………………………………………………..257
Fig. V-12 Tunghai Project, Taiwan 1954……………………………………………258
Fig. V-13 Agricultural Exhibition Hall National Taiwan University 1963…………258
Fig. V-14 Pacific Centre, Central 1960s……………………………………………258
Fig. V-15 Chan Shui Kui Memorial School, Yau Yat Tsuen 1960s…………………258
Fig. V-16 FAN Wen Zhao (范文照, 1893-1979)……………………………………259
Fig. V-17 “Chinese Style” Government Projects Designed by Fan………………...267
Fig. V-18 Yafa Apartment, Shanghai 1934………………………………………….267
Fig. V-19 Majestic Theatre, Shanghai 1941………………………………………...267
Fig. V-20 Pine Hill, Kowloon 1951…………………………………………………268
Fig. V-21 North Point Methodist Church, 1961…………………………………….268
Fig. V-22 The Sun Company’s “Chinese Style” Design, Shanghai 1935…………..276
Fig. V-23 Similar “Chinese Style” Designs by YANG Ting Bao of KC&Y………..276
Fig. V-24 Man Yee Building’s Shopping Arcade Programme, Hong Kong 1954…..276
Fig. V-25 “Shopping Arcade” Programme in the Central District………………….277
Fig. V-26 Skywalk Network in Central……………………………………………..277
Fig. V-27 Regional Seminary of South China Chapel, Hong Kong 1955…………..288
Fig. V-28 South Sea Textile Co. Ltd. Memorial Hall, Hong Kong c1967………….288
Fig. V-29 Yates Road Bank and Apartment Building, Shanghai 1934……………...289
Fig. V-30 North Suzhou Brook Warehouse Department, Shanghai 1933…………..289
Fig. V-31 Wah Yan College Chapel, Hong Kong 1958…………………..289, 290, 291

x
 List of Tables

Table I-1 Native Place Analysis……………………………………………………...65

Table I-2 Educational Background Analysis I………………………………………..67
Table I-3 Educational Background Analysis III……………………………………...68
Table II-1 The Move to the Shanghai Area, 1920s-1930s……………………………81
Table II-2 The Retreat to the Inland Area, late 1930s………………………………..82
Table II-3 The Migration to Hong Kong, late 1940s…………………………………83
Table II-4 Year of Arrival of the Migrant Architects ………………………………...86
Table III-1 Foundation Members of the HKSA, 1956……………………………...128
Table III-2 Presidents of the HKSA (HKIA), 1956-1979…………………………..128
Table III-3 Architect or Engineer:
Professional Identification of the Migrant Architects…………………..135
Table III-4 AA Membership Composition in 1949 vs. in 1956……………………..141
Table III-5 Society Membership Composition in 1949 vs. in 1956………………...142
Table III-6 Migrant Architects as Foundation Members of the HKSA, 1956………143

xi
 Introduction

1 General Background

During the late Qing Dynasty, architecture emerged as a new modern profession

in China. The earliest Chinese architects were students sent by the Qing government

to study engineering or architecture in Europe, Japan and America. They were

expected to return and build modern military and industrial structures with Western

knowledge gained from study abroad. This was to fulfill the government’s reforms

that aimed at defending China from the foreign invasions experienced since 1840.

Although the reforms failed to prevent the doom of the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese

students did return. They supplanted the master builders in the Chinese craftsman

tradition, and became Chinese “architects” in the modern understanding of this term.1

The returned students are considered to be the “First Generation” (第一代) of

Chinese architects (Y. S. Yang, 2002). The First Generation contributed greatly to

the establishment of the architectural profession in Republican China (1911-1949) in

various aspects. They opened their practices in China’s modern cities and erected

numerous important projects. They broke through the Western domination of China’s

construction market from the late 1920s. They established China’s own architectural

schools, the first in Suzhou in 1923. 2 They conducted academic research on the

history of Chinese architecture in the Institute for Research in Chinese Architecture

(中国营造学社) from 1929. They founded the first Chinese architects’ association,

the Society of Chinese Architects (中国建筑师学会) in 1927 to promote architecture

through publications, exhibitions, competitions, etc.3

1
For more on this topic, see Chapter One, Section One, “The Emergence of Chinese Architects”.
2
Suzhou Industrial School (苏州工业专门学校). Ibid.
3
For more on the great contributions by the First Generation, see Chapter Three, Section One, “A
Comparison of the Architectural Profession in Mainland China and Hong Kong before 1949”

1
 After 1949 when the communist regime, the People’s Republic of China (hereafter

abbreviated as “PRC”) was established, Mainland China4 was closed to the West and

incorporated into the Sino-Soviet socialist alliance. The architectural profession was

heavily influenced by the socialist system. All private firms were nationalized into

large-scale state-owned design institutes. Private societies were replaced by official

organizations. Chinese architects suffered during various political campaigns, and

were deprived of the freedom of self-expression. They were also banned from

communicating with the architectural profession in the Western world. This situation

continued until 1979 when China adopted its “Reform and Open” policy (改革开放).

It is not surprising that Chinese architects made fewer contributions than previously.

Thus the three decades from 1949 to 1979 have been accepted as a suppressed period

in the architectural modernization process in Mainland China. 5

Fortunately, a number of Chinese architects migrated to Hong Kong during the

aforementioned suppressed period around 1949. Moreover, they achieved important

developments in the architectural profession, practice and design after 1949,

compared with their contemporaries who stayed in Mainland China. As discovered

by this research, on the eve of the communist victory, a total of sixty-seven “migrant

architects” came to Hong Kong, together with other building professionals such as

engineers and contractors, together with millions of Mainland immigrants some of

whom were their former or potential clients. By then, Hong Kong had just recovered

from the Japanese Occupation (1942-1945) and had entered the post-war period of

4
In this research, apart from particular explanations, “Mainland China” mainly refers to a geographic
territory, which excludes Hong Kong and Taiwan; rather than relating to the political regime of the
People’s Republic of China.
5
For more discussions on the difficult situation that Chinese architects suffered in Mainland China
after 1949, see Chapter Five, Section Two, Sub-section One, “Su’s Nationalistic Ideal”.

2
increasing urban reconstruction.6 On the other hand, it remained a British colony and

kept connections with the Western capitalist world (Muramatsu, Mukai, & Takenaka,

1997, p.158). The findings of this research show that the migrant architects re-opened

their own private firms and designed large-quantity and high-quality projects of

various types. They were engaged in founding Hong Kong’s first architects’

association. They expressed their architectural ideals through publications or design

works. They received updated information about architectural development in the

West. In other words, Hong Kong provided the migrant architects a freer

environment for further development, and in return they played important roles in

building post-war Hong Kong.

However, “the history of Mainland architects in Hong Kong remains largely

blank” (Lung, 1997, p.265) until recent years. There seems to be a blind spot in the

field of architectural history research in both Hong Kong and the PRC. On one hand,

in the history of Hong Kong architecture, the Mainland migrant architects and their

subculture have long been overlooked because of the colonial and postcolonial

context. Urban evolution and architectural development in Hong Kong have been

understood from the viewpoint of the British colonial influence (Morris, 1986; Home,

1997; Crinson, 2003). As to the studies of individual professionals, more attention

has been paid to non-Chinese rather than Chinese.7 It was not until 2002 that a group

of young local architects began to conduct case studies on Hong Kong’s Chinese

architects, including key members of “the migrant architects” of this research.8 Their

6
For more on Hong Kong’s post-war situation, see Chapter Four Section One “New Momentum of
Urban Development in Post-War Hong Kong”.
7
For example, in the study of individuals’ contributions to the urban landscapes in British colonies,
including Hong Kong, Home (1997) writes: “If the emphasis is overwhelmingly upon white individuals,
I hope that this is not from any white supremacist leanings on my part, but rather reflects the reality of
the one-sided political structures which created colonial cities”(p.5) Clearly, he adopts a one-sided
viewpoint, although admitting there might be a possible bias.
8
For example, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects (hereafter abbreviated as “HKIA”) organized a
project entitled “100 Years of Hong Kong Architecture” in 2002. Ng and Chu, co-authors of the

3
effort, corresponding with other local scholars’ historical writings on their own

Chinese communities, echoes the rise of the Hong Kong identity from the early 1980s

and particularly after the 1997 handover. These local narratives try to compete not

only with the one-sided narratives of British colonial influence, but also with the

PRC’s newly-produced official history of Hong Kong (Wong, 2000). However, the

case studies on the migrant architects lack a connection with their Mainland

background which I believe, is the key to understanding their unique contributions to

the architectural development, as well as to the building of Hong Kong identity during

the post-war era. 9

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 achievements in Hong

Kong are largely ignored due to the influence of the PRC’s political narrative and its

dominant nation-state ideology. The year 1949, the beginning of the PRC regime, is

regarded as the beginning of a new era not only in political history but also in

architectural history. The pre-1949 period is identified as the “modern” period (近代),

and has become the subject of intense research interest in the history of modern

Chinese architecture. Efforts have been made to uncover the achievements of

socialist China.10 However, other narratives such as that of post-1949 Hong Kong, a

British colony under a capitalist system, have been appropriated by the dominant

narrative.11

project conducted case studies on eight early Chinese architects (2004-05, 2007). Among these, seven
are key members of “the migrant architects”. For more on the research work done by these young local
architects, see the following Section Two Subsection One.
9
For more on the building of the Hong Kong identity, see the following Section Four Subsection Three.
10
For key articles on the architectural development in socialist China, see (Time + Architecture, 2007)
11
For more on the influence of the dominant nation-state ideology on architectural history writing, see
the following Section Two Subsection Two.

4
 By relating the difference in development in Hong Kong and Mainland China in a

parallel process, this research attempts to write a “bifurcated history”12 responding not

only to the one-sided narratives of Hong Kong architecture, but to the dominant

history of modern Chinese architecture. (Fig.1). On the Hong Kong side, it argues

that the main task of post-war architectural development was to meet the great

demand generated by the influx of Mainland immigrants. The migrant architects

made unique contributions to the development by designing for the Mainland

immigrants using their Mainland experience. Their contributions not only testify to

the significance of Chinese architects in the development of Hong Kong architecture,

but also reveal the multiplicity of Chinese identifications in architecture, which may

enrich the understanding of the Hong Kong identity.

On the PRC side, it argues that unlike their contemporaries who remained in

socialist China, where the architectural modernization process was severely

suppressed until 1979, the migrant architects arrived in capitalist Hong Kong under

increasing urban re-construction. Their work in Hong Kong demonstrates the

important Chinese development of the modern architectural profession, practice, and

design. The Hong Kong case can not only be considered an important continuation of

the “modern” period after 1949, but also can help to critically re-think the dominant

history of modern Chinese architecture in the PRC.

12
The bifurcated conception of history is borrowed from Duara (1995). He redefines the history of
modern China as a series of multiple, often conflicting narratives produced simultaneously at national,
local, and transnational levels. The dominant history is produced by the winner, while there have been
multiple narratives of community, which are often effaced or appropriated by the dominant history. He
suggests a bifurcated history to shed light on areas darkened by the dominant history and to recover a
historicity beyond the appropriating discourse.

5
 Fig. 1 A Bifurcated History of Modern Architecture in China after 1949

2 Review of Literature

Aiming at developing a bifurcated history, relevant literature on both the Hong

Kong and PRC sides should be reviewed.

2.1 The History of Mainland Architects in Hong Kong

Among previous studies, an initial account on the history of “Mainland architects

in Hong Kong” is given by Professor David P Y Lung at the University of Hong Kong

(hereafter abbreviated as “HKU”). He mentions six Chinese architects who are

members of the sixty-seven migrant architects defined by this research. However, he

admits that study on them “remains largely blank in the history”:

“…It was a difficult period for the architectural development in Hong

Kong from the end of the Would War Two to the early 1950s. At that time,

some Western-trained Chinese architects came to work in Hong Kong,

including FAN Wen Zhao (范文照), SU Gin Djin (徐敬直), CHEANG Koon

Hing (郑观宣), CHU Pin (朱彬), LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受) and LEE Young-

on (李扬安). They, as well as other Chinese capitalists of Shanghai and

6
 Nanjing relocated to Hong Kong from Mainland China where the Chinese

Communist Regime was established in 1949. They built a lot of commercial,

industrial, and residential buildings here, but did not leave behind significant

writings on architecture. Therefore, the study of their works in Hong Kong is

difficult and remains largely blank in the history….”13

Another relevant academic study was conducted by Professor Jeffrey W. Cody

(2002) at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (hereafter abbreviated as “CUHK”).

He studies the building dynamics between Hong Kong and Shanghai from 1916 to

1966. However, the study focuses on non-Chinese building professionals’

movements. Only one migrant architect, Robert FAN Wen Zhao (范文照), and his

arrival in Hong Kong around 1949 are mentioned.

It was not until 2002 that this “blank” page of history was considered by more

local architectural professionals. Since then, the HKIA has organized a project

entitled “100 Years of Hong Kong Architecture” to carry out research on Hong Kong

architectural history. They set up a website, held a series of exhibitions and lectures,

interviewed senior local architects, and published several books to present their

findings. 14 Some of the publications involve the topic of “Mainland architects in

Hong Kong”. For example, in the book Space Traveling: 100 years of Hong Kong

Architecture, Ng, one of the co-authors writes a brief introduction to twenty-three

Hong Kong architects or firms (Ng, 2005). Among them, eight are members of the

13
Lung’s original words are in Chinese: “由战后到五十年代初，香港的建筑可说是处于艰难期，
这时有一批曾留学海外的中国建筑师在港发展，如范文照、徐敬直、郑观宣、朱彬，陆谦受和
李杨安，他们都是在 1949 年中共建国时，随上海、南京的资本家们迁到本港的。他们建造了许
多商厦，工厂大厦和住宅，可惜并未留下影响深远的建筑理论，以致后人要整理其作品也面临
困难，形成本港建筑史上的一段空白。” (Lung, 1997, p.265)
14
The project’s website address is http://www.hkia.net/100year/index.htm. The website provides the
information of the oral interviews, talks, and tours conducted in the projects. For an introduction to the
project, also see “Board of internal affairs” in (Chan & Hong Kong Institute of Architects., 2006),
pp.70-72.

7
migrant architects. Ng and Chu conduct a further case study on the eight migrant

architects.15 Ng also reviews the beginning of the HKIA and the history of Hong

Kong architectural practice in the HKIA fiftieth anniversary commemorative book

(Ng, 2006a, 2006b). His reviews mention several migrant architects’ contributions.

Another book Affection for architecture: talks with fifteen Hong Kong senior

architects (Hong Kong Institute of Architects, 2006) records oral interviews with 15

architects, of whom one is a migrant architect.16 In addition, Lam’s study focusing on

the pre-war period, discovered evidence of Chinese architects’ practices in 1903-1941

Hong Kong (2006). The fourteen Chinese architects mentioned in his study are

members of the migrant architects.

The author has been in contact with the above HKIA researchers such as Ng, Chu

and Lam since 2004.17 The HKIA project not only provides basic information for this

research, but also points out some important topics that should be given further

attention.

Firstly, Ng, Chu and Lam use the term “Chinese architects” to describe the

subjects in their studies, but without a clear definition. For example, Ng and Chu

(2004-2005, 2007) use “early Chinese architects” to designate the eight case studies,

of which seven are on the migrant architects, while one is on Eric Cumine. Although

Cumine migrated from Shanghai to Hong Kong in 1948, he was a Eurasian rather

15
The case studies are written in English and published in the HKIA Journal during 2004 and 2005 (Ng
& Chu, 2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d, 2005e, 2005f), and translated into Chinese and
published in a book (Ng & Chu, 2007).
16
The HKIA project interviewed Leslie OUYANG Chao（欧阳昭）in 2003, when the author had just
started her study at HKU. After 2004, Ouyang was not able to accept direct interviews for health
reasons.
17
The author helped to translate from English into Chinese Ng and Chu’s six case studies on early
Chinese architects published in (Ng & Chu, 2007) , and also introduced Luke Him Sau’s descendants
to the HKIA in Jan. 2007, sharing with them research on Luke (H. Y. Wang, 2007). As a result, an
exhibition and a book on Luke are going to be prepared by the HKIA in 2008.

8
than a Chinese.18 Among the forty-four names of “Chinese architects” listed by Lam

(2006), fourteen are the names of the migrant architects, while the rest are local

Chinese architects. It appears that Ng and Chu do not identify the Chinese from the

non-Chinese, and Lam does not separate the local Chinese from those who came from

Mainland China. Therefore, in Chapter One “The Migrant Architects”, this research

proposes a definition for “the migrant architects”, which highlights their Mainland

background.

Secondly, Lam’s study (2006) shows that fourteen migrant architects had

practiced in Hong Kong before 1949. In other words, there may have been earlier

movements of Chinese architects between Hong Kong and China’s other cities apart

from the 1949 migration. Therefore, in Chapter Two “The 1949 Migration”, this

research examines the 1949 migration as well as the pre-1949 building dynamics of

the migrant architects between Hong Kong and other cities in Mainland China.

Thirdly, Ng (2006a) reviews several attempts to form an architectural association

in Hong Kong from the 1940s to 1950s. He also points out the migrant architect SU

Gin-Djih（徐敬直）who made great efforts to found the Hong Kong Society of

Architects (HKSA, currently known as HKIA) and was elected the first President in

1956. However, he does not explain why Su’s effort in 1956 was successful, while

the previous attempts had failed. Therefore, in Chapter Three “Reform of the

Profession”, this research tries to find how their Mainland experience of architectural

professionalization enabled Su as well as other migrant architects to successfully form

Hong Kong’s first architects’ association.

18
See Chapter One Section Two for more on why this research excludes Cumine from the group of
migrant architects.

9
 Fourthly, when reviewing the history of Hong Kong’s architectural practice, Ng

(2006b) gives a brief account of the post-war era, by listing the names of architects or

firms and their important projects. However, he does not relate individual architects’

practices with the overall architectural development in post-war Hong Kong. This

research argues that the main task of post-war architectural development was to meet

the great demand generated by the influx of Mainland immigrants, who were former

or potential clients of the migrant architects. In Chapter Four “Practice Re-

establishment”, a study of client relations tries to specify how the migrant architects’

practices contributed to the economic growth and social reform in the post-war era

through designing for the Mainland immigrants.

Finally, as will be mentioned later,19 the HKIA’s on-going interest and research on

Hong Kong architectural history echoes the rising Hong Kong identity from the early

1980s and particularly after the 1997 handover. Therefore, in Chapter Five “Nation-

State, Region or City”, this research examines how the migrant architects’ Chinese

identifications in architecture, which had largely been shaped by the nationalistic

identity in Republican China, were transformed by Hong Kong’s post-war

environment, and contributed to the building of Hong Kong identity.

In summary, the review of literature on the Hong Kong side reveals the research

gaps in the history of “Mainland architects in Hong Kong after 1949” regarding

understanding of Hong Kong architects, Mainland-Hong Kong connections, the

founding of HKIA, Hong Kong architectural practices, and the Hong Kong identity.

This research tries to bridge the above gaps through relating the migrant architects’

activities in Hong Kong to their background in Mainland China.

19
See the following Section Four Subsection Three “Identity Building”.

10
 2.2 The History of Modern Chinese Architecture in the PRC

The history of modern Chinese architecture, the mainstream architectural history

in the PRC, is influenced by the PRC’s political narrative and its dominant nation-

state ideology. The most obvious influence can be observed concerning the

periodization issue. It has been generally accepted that the “modern” historical period

(近代) in Chinese architecture refers to architecture in Mainland China from 1840 to

1949 (B. D. Yang, 1998; Zeng, 1993; G. W. Zhao, 1987). The period began in 1840

when China was forced to open its door to the West by the First Anglo-Chinese War

(1839-42), and ended in 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party (hereafter

abbreviated as “CCP”) wrested power from the Kuomingtang (hereafter abbreviated

as “KMT”) and established the PRC regime.

Hou, one of the co-authors of the PRC textbook History of Chinese Architecture20,

participated in the writing of the textbook’s “modern” period in the first two versions

in 1959 and 1962, and was responsible for the writing in the latter two versions in

1993 and 2002. When reviewing theoretical frameworks of the textbook writing

from the 1950s, Hou admits that the first two versions completely followed the PRC

general history and political history, 21 with only a few amendments in the 1993

version (Hou, 2003). As a result, the year 1949, the beginning of the PRC regime, is

regarded as the beginning of a new era not only in political history but also in

architectural history. This official periodization has been largely accepted by the PRC

mainstream researchers. For example, Yang (1998) asserts that this periodization is

valid because architectural development of a country heavily depends on its political

and economic environment.

20
Up to the present, four versions of the textbook were published in 1959, 1962, 1993 and 2002.
21
Hou’s original words in Chinese are “完全套用通史、政治史来写建筑史”, in (Hou, 2003), p.23

11
 Lai, a leading scholar in the history of modern Chinese architecture,22 is among

the few who challenge this official periodization. When reviewing the writings on

history from the mid-1980s, Lai suggests a new periodization extending from 1840 to

1953 (Lai, 2002). He claims that one of the essential characteristics of the “modern”

period is the capitalist system of the modern building industry. It is different from the

previous traditional system and from the following socialist system. Therefore, the

end of the “modern” period should be 1953, when capitalism in the PRC was replaced

by the socialist system during the socialist movements in the early 1950s.

Replying to Lai’s periodization, this research argues that the capitalist system of

the modern building industry remained in Hong Kong after 1949. And, at least sixty-

seven Chinese architects, who were the main subjects of the history of modern

Chinese architecture, migrated to Hong Kong in and around 1949, and continued their

professional careers in the capitalist system. Therefore, the narrative of the migrant

architects in Hong Kong should be considered a continuation of the history of the

“modern” period, and a bifurcation of the history in socialist China.

Apart from the periodization issue, bias occurring in other aspects of the history of

modern Chinese architecture is caused by the dominant nation-state ideology. The

first aspect is of the emergence of Chinese architects. Huang (1985) suggested that

the educational background of Chinese architects is the key to understanding the

emergence process. Lai’s study 23 shows that Chinese architects had various

educational backgrounds. They were either trained abroad or at home, either

22
Lai graduated with a doctorate in Architecture History from Tsinghua University in 1992 and with
his second doctorate in Art History from Chicago University in 2007. Both dissertations study the
history of modern Chinese architecture (Lai, 2007). He also edits Who’s Who in Modern Chinese
Architecture (Lai, Wang, Yuan, & Si, 2006), which builds the foundation for the study on modern
Chinese architects. The author participated in the edition as the second editor from 2002.
23
See “The transplantation of a discipline: the emergence of architects and the development of
architectural education in modern China”, in (Lai, 2007)

12
architectural or engineering based, and either formally educated professionals or

informally trained draftsmen. However, mainstream PRC researchers pay more

attention to those Chinese architects who were trained abroad. For example, of the

“First Generation”, according to Yang (2002), “all were returned students”. 24

Moreover, those who were trained under the Beaux-Arts system in the US attract

more research interest than those from Japan and Europe.25

Following Lai’s study, this research analyzes the migrant architects’ educational

background in Chapter One. The findings show a similar diversity of background but

a higher proportion of engineering based and British trained. Chapter Three discusses

the different contributions made by architecturally-based and engineering-based

migrant architects to architectural professionalization in Hong Kong. Chapter Five

tries to address the different attitudes held by Beaux-Arts trained and Bauhaus trained

migrant architects when expressing Chinese identity in architecture.

The second aspect is that of the practices of Chinese architects. Lai (2002) points

out that existing research in the PRC mainly studies individual architects, buildings,

and cities. For example, it mainly concentrates on important returned students,

particularly those who returned from the US, including LIANG Si Cheng (梁思成,

Liang Ssu-ch’eng) and his wife LIN Hui Yin (林徽因, Lin, Phyllis Whei-Yin), 26 LU

Yan Zhi（吕彦直),27 YANG Ting Bao (杨廷宝),28 and TONG Jun (童寯),29 etc. The

24
Yang’s original texts in Chinese are “第一代都是留学生”. In his study Four Generation of Chinese
Architects (2002), he selected thirty-nine important returned Chinese architects as the First Generation.
25
There are a large number of studies on the US trained Chinese architects, for examples see the
following second aspect. An initial study on those Japan trained is a PhD research by Xu Su Bing (Xu,
2005). The study on those Europe trained, according to Koegel (2007), is just starting.
26
Key works on Liang and Lin include (Fairbank, 1994; Lai, 2007; S. Li, 2002; C. Zhao, 2000b, 2005).
Works of Liang are published in ten-volume (Liang, 2001).
27
Those on Lu include that of Lai, 2005; and Liu, 1991.

13
studies also include important projects, particularly governmental or monumental

projects designed by the above individual architects, such as the Sun Yat-sen

memorial buildings in Nanjing (1925) and Guangzhou (1926) by LU Yan Zhi（吕彦

直); the National Central Museum in Nanjing (1935), consultant LIANG Si Cheng

(梁思成); the Central Athletic Centre (1930) by YANG Ting Bao (杨廷宝); and the

Ministry of Diplomacy in Nanjing (1932) by TONG Jun (童寯). They mainly study

the famous treaty ports such as Shanghai, and republican strongholds such as

Shanghai,30 Guangzhou31 and Nanjing.32

The above mainstream research focus has been challenged. Lai has been

collecting data on Chinese architects for more than fifteen years, and has published a

small part of his collection in Who’s Who in Modern Chinese Architecture (2006),

including data on 250 architects. A large-scale architectural survey in sixteen modern

Chinese cities was conducted by universities in both China and Japan. The findings

are published in sixteen volumes. 33 Both efforts, through the presentation of a

number of architects, buildings and cities together, provide the solid foundation for a

comprehensive understanding of the history. Johnston published a series of books

studying Western architecture in different Chinese cities.34 The author’s unpublished

28
Those on Yang include that of Lai, 2007; Liu & Li, 2006; and Ruan, 2002. Works of Yang are
published in Yang, Han, & Zhang, 2001; Yang, Wang, Chen, & Gao, 1997; and Yang, Zhao, & Zhang,
2001.
29
Those on Tong include Fang, 1984; Zhao & Tong, 2003; and Zhu, 2006. Works of Tong are
published in three-volume (Tong, 2000).
30
Shanghai with its dual background has attracted dominant focus both inside and outside China.
Works on Shanghai’s architectural history carried out by local scholars include Chen & Zhang, 1988;
Lai, 2007; Luo, Wu, & Li, 1996; Shanghai jian zhu shi gong zhi bian wei hui, 1991; Wu, 1997; and
Zheng, 1999; works by overseas scholars include Delande, 1995; Er, 2006; Johnston, 2000, 2004;
MacPherson, 1990; and Masuda & Muramatsu, 1998.
31
Works on Guangzhou include Lai, 2007; Peng, 2004; and Yeung, 1999.
32
Works on Nanjing include Lai, 2007; and Wang, 2002.
33
(Cao, 1995; Chen, 1995; Guo, 1993; Hou, 1992; Hu, 1992; Jiang, 1993; Li, 1992; Liu, 1992; Ma,
1992; Peng, 1993; Sui, 1995; Wang, 1993; Yang, 1993; Zhang, 1996)
34
(Johnston, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1998)

14
Master dissertation concerns Chinese architects and their activities in Republican

China (2002). Both try to address collective subjects.

This research is also aimed at collective subjects. As many as sixty-seven migrant

architects are examined together. Works of individual or different migrant architects

are compared. Moreover, their movements and business connections between

different cities are used to portray an architectural nexus in Republican China. In

other words, it is the relationship between subjects, rather than the individual subject

which is the focus of this research.

The third aspect is concerned with the architectural ideals of Chinese architects.

The nationalistic ideal as well as its architectural expression, the “Chinese style” of

architecture ( 中 国 式 建 筑 ) has become the main theme in architectural history

research in the PRC. This style is characterized by the use of both modern techniques

and traditional Chinese motifs. It was initially used by foreign architects in

missionary buildings in China. From the 1920s, the style was required by the

nationalistic government to represent a grand nation-state, and pursued by more and

more Chinese architects as a renaissance of Chinese architecture.35 It was not foreign

experiments nor governmental requirements, but the pursuit by Chinese architects that

is highly valued by the PRC mainstream researchers (Pan, 2001). Buildings in

“Chinese style” designed by Chinese architects have attracted more attention. A

typical example is Yang’s research, The history of modern Chinese cities and

architecture (1993). He intentionally searched for such buildings in each city

surveyed, and expressed regret when the survey in Tianjin discovered that it was

difficult to find even one example.

35
The first master piece in “Chinese style” architecture designed by Chinese is the Sun Yat-sen
Mausoleum in Nanjing designed by LU Yan Zhi（吕彦直) in 1925. The use of “Chinese style” was
also a requirement of the nationalistic government. For more on the “Making a ‘Chinese Style’
Architecture”, see Chapter Five Section One.

15
 Lai initially identifies two main architectural attitudes in the Republican era as

“modernity” and “nationality”.36 He found that the “Chinese style” of architecture

was encouraged by political forces, while the “international style” of architecture (现

代式建筑) was stimulated by economic requirements. He claims that modernity is

another emphasis in parallel with nationality in the history. His study tries to extricate

the mainstream researchers from over-attention to the nationalistic attitude.

Jia (2003) further questions whether it is appropriate to call Chinese architects

“modernist” if they designed architecture in the international style. He argues that in

Republican China, Chinese architects were unconcerned with mass housing projects,

while by then housing was already a major part of the modernist agenda in Europe. In

other words, Chinese architects mainly designed municipal and monumental projects

for the government, or grand commercial projects for wealthy clients, but fewer

designed housing projects for lower income people.

Echoing the above critiques, this research examines the migrant architects’

changing attitudes towards both the “Chinese style” and the “international style”

(Chapter Five). Their attitudes probably changed because they left Mainland China

under the intensified nationalization process, and came to Hong Kong, a so-called

small “international” stronghold in the post-war decades (Muramatsu et al., 1997,

pp.158-160). Apart from private development, this research also investigates the

public works designed by the migrant architects for lower income people in Hong

Kong, which may indicate their sense of social responsibility.

36
Lai’s paper “modernity and nationality: attitudes concerning the modernization of Chinese
architecture” first published in 1993, see the revised version in (Lai, 2007)

16
 In summary, the review of literature on the PRC side sheds light on the biases in

the mainstream history of modern Chinese architecture, which could be reduced, as I

believe, by the bifurcated history of “Mainland architects in Hong Kong”. The

bifurcated history, as an important continuation of the “modern” period after 1949,

may demonstrate a different development from that of socialist China. Moreover, it

may grant us some distance to re-think the PRC mainstream researchers’ over-

attention given to returned Chinese architects, important buildings or cities, and the

nationalistic ideal.

3 Statement of Research Problem

Based on the above literature review, the main problem of this research is outlined

as below:

How do the Mainland migrant architects, their migration, and their works in Hong

Kong after 1949 contribute to a bifurcated history of modern Chinese architecture?

The main problem is divided into five sub-problems, which will be studied

respectively in five chapters. Following the statement of each sub-problem and

chapter title, related questions and objectives are further stated. The objectives

respond to the research gaps on both the Hong Kong and PRC sides discovered by the

above reviews.

Sub-problem One: Who are the migrant architects?

Chapter One: The Migrant Architects

Questions:

• How did “Chinese architects” emerge as modern professionals in China?

• How to define “the migrant architects” from general Chinese architects?

• How many Chinese architects can fit the definition of “the migrant architects”?

17
 • What are the migrant architects’ personal data such as name, native place,

educational background, professional experience, principal works, etc.?

• Can any collective features be concluded from individual architects’ personal

data?

Objectives:

• To fill the research gap on the Hong Kong side, namely the lack of a clear

understanding of “Hong Kong Chinese architects”, Chapter One proposes a

definition for “the migrant architects”.

• To reduce the bias on the PRC side, which is the over-attention given to

Chinese architects who were trained overseas in architecture, particularly

those under the Beaux-Arts system in the US, Chapter One pays equal

attention to students trained abroad and at home; to architectural and

engineering students; to the US trained students and those trained in other

places; and to the Beaux-Arts trained and Bauhaus trained students when

studying the educational background of the migrant architects.

Sub-problem Two: Why did the migrant architects leave China and come to Hong

Kong around 1949?

Chapter Two: The 1949 Migration

Questions:

• Were the migrant architects used to moving between Hong Kong and China’s
other modern cities before 1949?

• What was special about the 1949 migration?

• Why did they choose Hong Kong as the 1949 migration destination, rather

than other places?

• Why did they migrate before, during or after 1949?

Objectives:

18
 • To fill the research gap on the Hong Kong side concerning Mainland-Hong

Kong connections, Chapter Two particularly highlights the movements and

migration of the migrant architects between Hong Kong and China’s other

cities.

• To reduce the bias on the PRC side, which is the over-attention on individual
subjects, Chapter Two carries out a study of the migrant architects’

movements and migration between different Chinese cities including Hong

Kong.

Sub-problem Three: Did the arrival of the migrant architects cause any changes in

the architectural profession in post-war Hong Kong?

Chapter Three: Reform of the Profession

Questions:

• Was the architectural profession in Hong Kong which the migrant architects

encountered after 1949 different from that in Mainland China, which they had

been familiar with before 1949?

• If so, what were the differences?

• If so, what challenges would they have experienced?

• What efforts did they make to deal with the challenges?

• How did their Mainland experience make them more capable to deal with the

challenges?

• Did their responses to the challenges result in any changes in the host

profession?

Objectives:

• To fill the research gap on the Hong Kong side concerning the founding of the
HKSA, Chapter Three aims at clarifying the special contributions the migrant

architects made to found the HKSA in 1956.

19
 • To further reduce the bias on the PRC side, which pays more attention to

architecturally-based architects than to those with an engineering-base,

Chapter Three aims at finding the different contributions made by the

architecturally-based and engineering-based migrant architects to architectural

professionalization in Hong Kong.

Sub-problem Four: How did the migrant architects re-establish their practices in

Hong Kong, and how did their practices contribute to post-war architectural

development in Hong Kong?

Chapter Four: Practice Re-establishment

Questions:

• What would the migrant architects have seen in post-war Hong Kong

regarding its building activities as well as the related political, economic and

social situation?

• When opening their practices in Hong Kong, did they preserve their former
partnerships?

• How did they build a wider ranging professional network?

• Did they resume relationships with their old clients who also migrated from

Mainland China to Hong Kong around 1949?

• How did they develop new client relationships in the local market?

• What developments did they design for their old and new clients?

• How did these developments contribute to different aspects of society in post-

war Hong Kong?

Objectives:

• To bridge the research gap on the Hong Kong side, which seldom places
individual architects’ practices in the context of Hong Kong’s post-war

environment, Chapter Four uses client relations studies to relate the practices

20
 of the migrant architects with the economic growth and political reforms in

post-war Hong Kong.

• To reduce the bias on the PRC side, which pays more attention to municipal,
monumental and commercial projects than to those built for lower income

people, Chapter Four investigates works designed by the migrant architects in

Hong Kong not only for Mainland entrepreneurs but also for Mainland

refugees.

Sub-problem Five: How did the 1949 migration influence the migrant architects’

sense of Chinese identity, and their ways of expressing identity in architecture?

Chapter Five: Nation-State, Region or City

Questions:

• What environment in Republican China particularly formed the migrant

architects’ sense of Chinese identity?

• How did they express their Chinese identity in architecture in Republican

China?

• Were individual architects different in expressing Chinese identity in

architecture in Republican China?

• Was the pre-1949 Mainland environment similar to that in post-1949 Hong

Kong?

• If not, how did individual architects transform their attitudes and architectural
expressions to respond to Hong Kong’s post-war environment?

• Does their transformation suggest new perspectives of Chinese identity in

architecture?

Objectives:

• To fill the research gap on the Hong Kong side concerning Hong Kong

identity in the architectural field, Chapter Five investigates how the migrant

architects’ Chinese identifications in architecture were transformed by Hong

21
 Kong’s post-war environment, which may enrich the understanding of the

Hong Kong identity.

• To reduce the bias on the PRC side, which is over-attention given to the
Chinese architects’ nationalistic ideal, Chapter Five examines how the migrant

architects developed new ideals in architecture besides that of nationalism

after migrating to Hong Kong.

In summary, the five chapters of this research aim at answering the five sub-

problems, and studying five themes of the history of “Mainland architects in Hong

Kong after 1949”, that is, migrant architects, architectural migration, profession,

practice, and identity. Moreover, each chapter targets the research gaps in the

architectural history research on both the Hong Kong and the PRC sides. By doing so,

the five chapters together may fulfill the task of writing a bifurcated history of modern

Chinese architecture.

4 Theoretical Framework

This section attempts to address a theoretical framework by which the history of

“Mainland architects in Hong Kong after 1949” could be viewed from a broad

historical context. The theoretical framework includes three levels. Firstly, by

reviewing literature on the relationship between orient (the East) and occident (the

West), it tries to remap modern China in the world setting. Secondly, by applying

urban network theory, it tries to re-posit Hong Kong in modern China’s nexus.

Thirdly, by adopting identity interpretation, it tries to relate Mainland architects with

the Hong Kong society.

22
 4.1 Orient vs. Occident: Remapping Modern China in the World Setting

Until the last few decades the history of modern architecture in China as well as in

other non-Western countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America had

been regarded simply as an extension of Western development and therefore of little

interest and originality in itself. As is widely known and discussed today, the reasons

for this had much to do with Euro-centricity and Orientalism.

The established Western attitudes towards the East have been radically challenged

at least since the publication of Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978). Some researchers

in the history of modern Chinese architecture also apply the critique of Orientalism.

For example, Feng (1998) applies Said’s critical perspectives to the study of the

“Chinese style” of architecture. The “Chinese style” of architecture was initially an

experiment by foreign architects in missionary projects in China from the late

nineteenth century.37 He analyzes four different intentions of Orientalism and their

influence on Chinese architects.

Muramatsu and Bao (2003) further broaden the scope from China to Asia and

from individuals to nations, noting that the “Chinese style” is one of the nationalistic

styles that could also be found in other British or French colonies. These styles were a

plot by the imperialist nations to steal the local authority’s architectural style as their

own symbol of colonial power. They further point out that local architects and

architectural historians in China and Japan accepted these styles unconsciously and

produced second-hand influences of Orientalism and Nationalism.

Some researchers in the field are alarmed at the opposite tendency of

“Occidentalism”. Zhao (2000a) argues that in the field of modern Chinese

37
For more on the making of the “Chinese style” architecture, see Chapter Five, Section One,
Subsection One.

23
architectural history in the PRC, there has been an over critique of the “Tree of

Architecture” by Fletcher (Fig.2) who had dishonored Eastern architecture as non-

historical styles. However, it is ignored that the “Tree” as well as the bias has been

removed since the book’s seventeenth edition in 1961. He appeals for positive

contributions to the field, rather than negative complaints which might lead to the

prejudice of “Occidentalism”. He then provides an alternative narrative of the “River

of Culture” which indicates that both the East and West have contributed to the

development of world architecture.

Apart from the critique of Eurocentric and Orientalism, Deleuze and Guattari

(1986), French linguists, open a new door to the study of non-Western culture. Their

theory of Network and Rhizome rejects all the dualistic divisions such as the East and

West and the historical and present, but demonstrates that all things exist at the same

time, and their relationships are organic, dynamic and anti-hierarchical (Fig.3). Such

a theory has also been applied by Kurokawa, a Japanese architect in his architectural

philosophy of metabolism and symbiosis, and has further influenced Chinese

architecture (Kurokawa, 2004, p.41).

At the same time, critical histories of modern architecture began to understand the

idea of modernism as a thoroughly rational and universal doctrine that the architecture

of every nation would sooner or later emulate (Frampton, 1985). When Bozdogan

(2001) studied the modernism in Turkish architecture, he argues that unlike in the

West, modernization in most non-Western countries did not have a real material and

social basis, namely, industrial cities, capitalist production and an autonomous

bourgeoisie. It was an official program conceived and implemented either by colonial

governments or by local elites of an authoritarian nation-state that placed a top-down

priority on architecture and urbanism as a form of “visible politics”. This has also

been proven true in China. Both the nationalist government in the 1930s and the

24
communist government in the early 1950s forced the “Chinese styles” to be used in

municipal or monumental buildings to represent a grand nation-state (Lai, 2007;

Rowe & Kuan, 2002).

In summary, the history of modern Chinese architecture does not follow the

patterns of the West but has been developing in its own way. It should be situated

historically and contextually in the world setting. The critiques of the Eurocentric,

Orientalist and “Universal” modernism are the theoretical basis at the world-nation

level.

Fig. 2: Tree of Architecture Fig. 3: Network and Rhizome

(Fletcher, 1901, front piece) (Kurokawa, 1996, pp.41)

25
 4.2 Urban Network: Repositioning Hong Kong in Modern China

The urban history of China should be first reviewed at the nation-city level.

During the late Qing pre-modern period, China had a low urbanization index with the

majority comprising rural villages and towns, relatively few middle level cities, and

still fewer large cities (Fig.4) (Rozman, 1973).

By the early twentieth century, a number of distinct urban types had developed in

modern China. These included treaty ports, republican capital cities, interior cities,

tourist cities, railway cities, industrial cities, and frontier cities (Esherick, c2000)

(Fig.5). Urban construction activities in these modern cities were initiated by

different authorities, and carried out by architectural professionals. For example,

building in treaty port concessions such as the International Settlement and the French

Concession in Shanghai, was managed by and for the Imperial Powers, while urban

renewal in republican strongholds such as Shanghai, Guangzhou, Nanjing and

Chongqing, was planned by the Nationalist government.

However, these modern cities were far apart geographically, and surrounded by

vast areas of countryside. It was the development of transportation such as the

railroad that linked the major nodes of the various urban types into an integrated

“urban network” (Chang, 1943) (Fig.6).

Apart from the obvious visible transportation systems, there were other invisible

links at work. In the study of banks and bankers in Tianjin, one of China’s main

treaty ports, Sheehan (2000) applies DeVries’ “decision making” realms to

understand China’s urban network (1984). There are three realms identified by

DeVries: people and their migration patterns; the controllers of capital and their

investment behavior; and the state and its political decisions. Sheehan adds a fourth

26
realm “culture and its media of transmission and influence” and suggests that people,

capital, politics and culture as four different spheres, played important roles in linking

China’s modern cities into an urban network. In another study of the financial

network of banks and bankers in 1936 Republican China, Sheehan (2005) further

argues that there was a financial network based on the Republican urban network.

The author’s unpublished Master dissertation (2002) examines Chinese architects

and their interregional migrations within Mainland China in the Republican era. The

findings show that when the capital of Republican China shifted from Beijing to

Nanjing in 1928 and from Nanjing to Chongqing in 1937, the location of Chinese

architectural practices also moved from north to south and from the coast to inland.

Associations are made between architects’ migration patterns and the state’s political

decisions. These prove the existence of an architectural network in Republican

China.38

Fig. 4 Central Places Distribution in Qing China (Rozman, 1973)

38
For more on the architectural network in Republican China, see Chapter Two, Section One, “Chinese
Architects and the Republican Architectural Network”.

27
28
 It could then be asked whether Hong Kong was located in the urban network, in

particular the architectural network of modern China. Previous studies comparing

Hong Kong with other individual Chinese cities may provide clues to the answer. For

example, Peng (2004) uses the term of “a tale of two cities” to describe colonial Hong

Kong’s influence on Guangzhou’s modern architecture. The same term is also

adopted by Lee (1999) who looks at Hong Kong as a special lens through which to

study the urban culture of Shanghai.

The relationship between colonial Hong Kong and old Shanghai is particularly

highlighted in two academic events held by the Centre of Asian Studies at HKU. The

first event, held in 2002, was an international conference titled “Repositioning Hong

Kong and Shanghai in modern Chinese history”. In one paper presented in the

conference, Cody (2002) examined foreign architects and their migration between

Hong Kong and Shanghai from 1916 to 1966. The migration was firstly south-to-

north oriented, that is from Hong Kong to Shanghai during the period from 1916 to

1932, and was reversed from Shanghai to Hong Kong after Japan’s attack on

Shanghai in 1932. He also suggests that architectural dynamics or relationship studies

should be carried out between Hong Kong and other Chinese cities such as

Guangzhou, Tianjin and Taiwan.

It is worth noting that unlike foreign building professionals, Chinese architects did

not leave Shanghai or other coastal cities in the early 1930s, but after 1937 when the

full-scale Sino-Japanese War broke out. In fact, partly due to the withdrawal of

Western powers, the 1930s was the golden age for these Chinese architects to develop

their businesses and carry out numerous important projects in these modern cities (Lai,

2007; Pan, 2001; Wu, 1997).39

39
For more information concerning the distinctive features of Chinese architects’ migration, see
Chapter Two, Section Three, Subsection Four, “LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受)”.

29
 The second event was a series of seminars on “the economic, social, and historic

growth of Shanghai” in around 2006. Among a total of twelve seminars, five were

comparative studies of Shanghai and Hong Kong. For example, the author’s paper

“Chinese architects coming from Shanghai to Hong Kong after 1949” (Wang, 2006)

was a preliminary study in this research.

In summary, according to the decision-making realms of the urban network theory,

at the nation-city level, Chinese architects and their migration reflect the four spheres

of people, capital, political and a culture of professionalism. All these suggest the

existence of an architectural network in Republican China. Various comparative

studies on the relationship between Hong Kong and China’s other modern cities imply

Hong Kong’s position within the urban network as well as the architectural network

of modern China. These studies also provide relevant viewpoints and appropriate

methods for this research.

4.3 Identity Building: Mainland Architects in Hong Kong

Identity study is used to place the Mainland migrant architects in the context of

post-war Hong Kong at the city-people level. This involves three aspects of identity

study regarding architects, Mainland Chinese, and migrants.

The migrant architects came to Hong Kong first as architects. They would have

had to differentiate themselves from the “others” within the building industry. Firstly,

there was the differentiation between “architects” as a modern profession and

“builders” (工匠) in the Chinese craftsman tradition. Like the Chinese society in

Mainland China, Hong Kong’s local society with its overwhelming majority Chinese

population also had misunderstandings concerning the newly emerged modern

professionals, “architects”. In the Chinese craftsman tradition “builders” had never

earned a deserved reputation. Liang Si cheng (梁思成, Liang Ssu-ch’eng), the first

30
great Chinese architectural historian criticizes: “Builders (craftsmen) were just slaves

of labor. Both their profession and they themselves were despised by upper class

scholar-bureaucrats.” (Liang, 1984, vol.2, p.220). The review of Hong Kong’s

journals and newspapers show that the local Chinese society had a similar bias. When

reporting a new building erected, publications in Chinese would probably not mention

its designers, while those in English did,40 such as the journal Hong Kong and Far East

Builder (hereafter abbreviated as “The Builder”). Therefore, when architects and

engineers emerged as modern professionals in China’s modern building industry, they

were often categorized as “builders” by ordinary Chinese people.

Secondly, there was the differentiation between architects and other modern

building professionals, such as engineers. The general architect-engineer conflicts

presented special characteristics in Mainland China as well as in Hong Kong.41 In

Mainland China, both professions were established by returned Chinese students. The

architectural students returned later than the engineers. This provided opportunities

for engineers to open their own firms carrying out architectural design as well as

being engineering consultants (Delande, 1995; Lai, 2007). As a result, even academic

groups and local authorities found it hard to distinguish between the two professions

(Wang & Hui, 2004).

In Hong Kong, the two professions did not achieve a clear differentiation either,

although they were dominated by Westerners, particularly the British. The reason is

that before the arrival of professional architects in the early twentieth century, it was

British surveyors and army engineers who took major responsibility for building

activities in Hong Kong (Muramatsu et al., 1997). Before the Hong Kong University

40
The author thanks Dr. Yeung, Wing Yu for reminding me of this point. Dr. Yeung is a local
historian who is an expert in the urban history of Guangzhou and Hong Kong (Yeung, 1999, 2007).
41
For more on the differences between the architectural profession in Hong Kong and Mainland China
before 1949, see Chapter Three, Section One.

31
had its Architectural Department in 1950 and first architectural graduates in 1955, it

was the engineering graduates from the Department of Civil Engineering who

registered as Hong Kong “Authorized Architects”. In fact, both surveyors and

engineers were allowed to be titled “Authorized Architects” from 1903 to 1974. 42 In

other words, the migrant architects would have continued to differentiate themselves

from traditional builders and other modern building professionals in Hong Kong as

they had done in Mainland China. These efforts enabled them to build the status of

architect, and to integrate into the local architectural profession.43

The migrant architects came to Hong Kong also as Mainland Chinese. Firstly,

this implies that they shared similar Mainland background which may have given

them a sense of collective identity. For example, native-place was an important factor

in cohesion (Goodman, 1995). According to Delande (1995), in Republican China,

more than fifty percent of the Chinese architects in Shanghai came from Guangzhou

Province; more than twenty percent were from Jiangsu and twenty percent from

Zhejiang. Moreover, educational background and former professional partnership

provided a professional niche. Also according to Delande (1995), in Republican

China, those Chinese architects who had studied in the same foreign country or

university would form a studio together. Therefore, statistical analyses should be

conducted on the native place, educational background, and partnership resumption of

the migrant architects to see whether a similar phenomenon happened in Hong

Kong.44

42
See: Hong Kong Lands and Works Branch Information and Public Relations Unit & Hong Kong
Building Development Dept., 1986. Also see Chapter Three, Section Three, “Architect vs. Engineer”.
43
For more on this topic, see Chapter Three, “Reform of the Profession”.
44
For the statistical analysis on the migrant architects’ native place and educational background, see
Chapter One, Section Three; for investigation on their partnership resumption, see Chapter Four,
Section Two, Subsection One.

32
 Secondly, the migrant architects may have shared similar nationalistic

architectural ideals that had been developed in Republican China which gave them a

sense of Chinese identity. During the late Qing dynasty, a self conscious sense of

Chinese nationalism came into being, stimulated by foreign invasions from without

and Qing government reforms from within (Fitzgerald, 1996). From the late 1910s,

the nationalization process was intensified and took place in many aspects of society

including the architectural field. Both nationalist architects and officials advocated

the “Chinese style” of architecture, which was believed to be a particular architectural

expression of the Chinese national identity.45 In fact, the migrant architects, when

practicing or studying in Republican China, could hardly avoid responding to the

rising nationalistic ideology. They held supportive, critical, neutral, or changing

attitudes towards the “Chinese style” which made up an important part of their

Chinese identity, and which would have influenced their later activities in Hong

Kong.46

The migrant architects came to Hong Kong also as migrants. On one hand, Hong

Kong has been a city of refuge for Mainland immigrants including the migrant

architects. The philosopher Derrida in his essay “On cosmopolitanism” (2004) calls

for the reinvigoration of the idea of the “city of refuge” in the early twenty-first

century. He argues that city and state are two forms of the metropolis. It is the city,

and not the state which offers the greatest potential for hospitality required in the age

of migration. For the foreigner in general, the immigrant, the exiled, the deported, the

stateless or the displaced person, new cities of refuge can ensure protection and liberty

and reorientate the politics of the state. Hong Kong can be regarded as a city of

45
For a comprehensive understanding of the national influences on “Chinese style” architecture, see
Lai’s article on “modernity and nationality: attitudes concerning the modernization of Chinese
architecture”, in (Lai, 2007), pp.181-293
46
The migrant architects’ attitudes towards the “Chinese style” and their changing Chinese identity in
architecture will be studied in Chapter Five.

33
refuge in this sense because of its special position in China as well as East Asia

(Hamashita, 1997) (Fig.7). It has functioned as an exit for Mainland refugees from

the nineteenth century on, and more importantly, its freer environment proposes

possible reforms of the politics in Mainland China.

On the other hand, the 1949 migration of Mainland immigrants helped to develop

a Hong Kong identity. According to Tsang (2004, pp.180-183), before the Pacific

War, the overwhelming majority of Hong Kong’s Chinese population were sojourners,

economic migrants, or refugees from Mainland China. With the exception of a small

number who had settled locally most intended to return to their home in China after

retirement. As a result, there was no sense of local identity. However, a Hong Kong

identity did eventually emerge after 1949. Since then, Mainland immigrants could not

return to Mainland China and had to settle down in Hong Kong. The bulk of the adult

Mainland immigrants had experiences of the brutal power struggle between the KMT

and CCP and preferred not to get involved in what they saw as politics. However,

more and more of the locally educated post-war generation of the Mainland

immigrants came to see Hong Kong as their home which encouraged a sense of Hong

Kong identity.

According to Dr. Faure (2004) in a public talk titled “Narrating Hong Kong

Studies”, this sense of Hong Kong identity became a significant topic from the early

1980s and particularly after the 1997 handover. The histories of various Hong Kong

Chinese communities are attracting a growing research interest. So is it with the

architectural society. As mentioned earlier, the HKIA carried out the “100 Years of

Hong Kong Architecture” project to conduct academic research on the history of

Hong Kong architecture. The histories written by Hong Kong local scholars

contribute to the building of a Hong Kong identity. They are bifurcated narratives,

34
Fig. 7 Hong Kong: A City of Refuge (Hamashita, 1997)

35
competing not only with the one-sided narratives of British colonial influence, but

also with the PRC’s newly-produced official history on Hong Kong (Wong, 2000). In

this sense, this research becomes part of these efforts, and is not only important in the

architectural field, but also in the field of Hong Kong history in general.

In conclusion, through examining their identity as architects, as Mainland Chinese,

and as migrants, the migrant architects are placed into Hong Kong’s historical and

contextual settings. The three levels, the world-nation, the nation-city, and the city-

people demonstrate a theoretical framework and focus for this research.

5 Data and the Treatment of Data

This section states three types of primary data as well as related collection and

analysis methods. This may shed light on the originality of this research.

5.1 Primary Data

The primary data for this research are mainly of three types. The first type is

archival materials which are kept by the Hong Kong government and local or national

governments in Mainland China. For example, the Public Record Office of Hong

Kong and the Second Historical Archives of China ( 中 国 第 二 历 史 档 案 馆 ) in

Nanjing keep important documents about the migrant architects, such as their

application forms for the registration of “Authorized Architects” in Hong Kong and

Republican China. These application forms provide basic personal information about

individual architects, including birth or death date, nationality, educational

background and professional experience. Moreover, the Building Department (BD),

the Architectural Service Department (ASD), and the Housing Department (HD) in

36
Hong Kong,47 and the Urban Construction Archives (城市建设档案馆) in Shanghai

and Nanjing have kept the original construction drawings done by the migrant

architects. The drawings are the key to understanding their designs.

The second type of primary data consists of the existing old buildings designed by

the migrant architects in Hong Kong as well as in China’s other cities such as

Shanghai, Nanjing, Guangzhou, etc. As a result of the rapid urban development in

China, particularly in Hong Kong, many projects designed by the migrant architects in

the 1920s or 1930s Shanghai and 1950s or 1960s Hong Kong have been demolished.

Therefore, the rare buildings still in existence are of great significance. After finding

an existing building and identifying its address, field trips are conducted.

Photography and documentation methods are employed to record the building’s

current conditions. Interviews are used to ascertain the original design because most

of the old buildings have been redeveloped from time to time.

The third type of primary data which has proven to be the most important, is the

information obtained from interviews (Fig.8). Interviewing the migrant architects

themselves reveals facts that could not have been discovered in either archive research

or field work. Interviews reveal individuals’ motivation behind activities, ideals

behind projects, and design can be understood as a process rather than a result.

However, among the sixty-seven migrant architects, this research can only find two

who are alive. Stanley KWOK Tun-Li (郭敦礼, 1927-) and Robert FAN Zheng (范

政, 1930-) who are the youngest members of the migrant architects, and familiar with

elder members. Kwok was the first Council Member of the HKSA (currently known

as HKIA) in 1956 and its president in 1966. Fan was the elder son of Robert FAN

Wen Zhao (范文照), who was the founder and the first President of the Society of

47
BD keeps the drawings of private development. ASD keeps those of governmental projects. HD
keeps those of public housing projects. Their collections span the post-war era to the present. As to
the pre-war era, most governmental records were destroyed during the Japanese Occupation.

37
Chinese Architects in 1927. Both provide invaluable primary data about themselves

and the history. Kwok lives in Vancouver, Canada, and Fan in California, the US,

therefore the interviews were mainly conducted through mail and telephone. The

author was also granted face-to-face meetings when they visited Hong Kong.

Sometimes, interviewing the migrant architects’ descendants also reveals

important discoveries, particularly when those descendants are interested in this

research and willing to co-operate. Interviewing the descendants of LUKE Him-sau

(陆谦受) is a case in point. In fact, it was Luk Men-Chong (陆曼庄), Luke’s grand-

daughter who found me, rather than I finding her. She was raised in Canada and

returned to Hong Kong in 2006. She has little memory of her architect grandfather,

but is curious about his architectural career. She first got into contact with my

supervisor, Dr. Desmond Hui C K, via the internet and consequently with me.

During the first interview,48 Men-Chong’s father, Luke’s middle son, Luk Shing

Chark ( 陆 承 泽 ) provided much oral evidence and images, contributing new

information on Luke’s career. Before the interview, the architectural history research

in the PRC was only aware of Luke’s career in Mainland China from 1930 to 1949

(Lai et al., 2006, pp.102-103), while research in Hong Kong knew his career in post-

war Hong Kong (Ng & Chu, 2004a). The interview reveals the earliest stage of

Luke’s life, his birth in Hong Kong; a link from his Mainland career to his Hong

Kong career with his activities during the 1949 migration; and the latest stage of his

life when he further migrated to the US in 1967 and returned to Hong Kong in 1973.

He also mentioned a family storage place which may have had Luke’s old documents.

48
The interview was conducted at the Clearwater Bay Golf & Country Club on December 13th, 2006
from 11:45 am to 4 pm. Four persons attended. Apart from Mr. Luk, Men-Chong, and myself, there
was Ng Kai Chung (吴启聪), one of the HKIA members who initiated the “100 Years of Hong Kong
Architecture” project, and was responsible for the case studies on architects, see previous Section Two,
Subsection Two. The author introduced Ng to the Luke family, which led to further possible co-
operation between the HKIA and the Luke family.

38
Men-Chong was encouraged by the talk and made great effort to search for the

documents in the store room. Within only two weeks, an invaluable collection was

discovered including over 2,400 drawings as well as old materials about Luke and his

Hong Kong office, such as client lists, certificates, resumes, paintings, poetry

collections, photos, personal letters, diaries, notes, a paper, etc. More meetings and

interviews have been held to study the discovered materials. Important progress in

the research on Luke has been achieved including publications (Ng & Chu, 2007; H.

Y. Wang, 2007), and on-going preparation for a public exhibition.

In other words, interviews with the migrant architects and their relatives help to

piece together the fragmented primary data to achieve an overall picture of individual

architects. However, the migrant architects who are alive and their relatives are few.

Other methods for the systematic collection of fragmented primary data should be

designed.

5.2 Systematic Collection of Data

The primary data discovered through archive research and field work are

fragmentary. Moreover, it appears that there are missing links between the data on

architects and their projects.

On one hand, the basic personal information about individual architects obtained

by archive research usually does not include the lists of architects’ principal works in

Hong Kong. For example, the application forms for the registration of “Authorized

Architects” in Republican China were submitted at an early stage of their careers in

the 1930s, and those in Hong Kong were submitted around 1949. Neither provides

information of their later practices in Hong Kong.

39
 On the other hand, designers of most of Hong Kong’s existing old buildings are

not known, apart from those major projects with their architects’ names reported in

local English journals such as The Builder. In order to find out the designer of a

particular building erected in the post-war era, one possible way is to find the original

construction drawings of the building kept by the Hong Kong government according

to the building’s address. Drawings of some projects can be found, some can not,

depending on the government’s collection. If drawings can be found, we can know

the identity of the designer because there is the signature of the Authorized Architect

on the drawings. However, this is a time and money-consuming way to identify all

the projects designed by the sixty-seven migrant architects.

It appears that sometimes we find architects but lack the information about their

Hong Kong projects, and sometimes, we discover old buildings but are unaware of

their designers. This research finds a key for dealing with the missing links. The key

is the new building approval notification in The Builder.49 From 1941, the journal

began to publish a detailed list of approved new buildings notified by the Hong Kong

government every two or three months. This list gives the building name and address

as well as the names of architects and clients. Although the list is very brief because

all the names are written in abbreviation and is incomplete because it only records a

sample of the approved new buildings,50 it does provide a key for linking the two

aspects of “architects” and “buildings” systematically (Fig.9).

49
The Hong Kong and Far East Builder (The Builder), founded in 1936 by Henry Graye, a London
engineer, was the earliest local journal reporting on architectural/building issues. It was not until 1980
that the publication was discontinued. For covering the time span of this research, the journal is
regarded as a key reference.
50
When comparing the number of new buildings in the list with that in Hong Kong government’s
annual report, it is clear that the list is only a sample.

40
 Top left: with Mr.& Mrs. FAN; Top right: with Mr. & Mrs. KWOK
Bottom, left to right: 1. with KC Ng, MC Luk, SC Luk; 2. with TC Lai, Mr.&Mrs. Luk, MC Luk
Fig. 8 Interviewing the Migrant Architects and Their Relatives in Hong Kong

Fig. 9: Systematic Collection of Data

41
 5.3 Analysis of Data

Three main methods of analysis are particularly suitable for this research; these

are the comparative approach, statistical approach, and triangulation approach.

The basic method in this research is the comparative approach. This approach is

not only one of the traditional methods in architectural history (Fletcher, 1961 17th

ed.), but plays a distinguished role in the study of Southeast Asia suggested by

Anderson (1983). This research uses the comparative approach in the following

aspects. Firstly, it compares the historical context in Mainland China and in Hong

Kong to highlight the changed environment. For example, Chapter Three, Section

One is a comparison of the architectural profession existing in Main China and in

Hong Kong before 1949. Secondly, it compares the designs of individual architects to

find the development of their design strategy. For example, Chapter Five compares

three individual architects’ pre-1949 Mainland projects with their post-1949 Hong

Kong projects.51 Thirdly, it compares the architectural attitudes held by the migrant

architects with the attitudes of those who stayed in Mainland China after 1949 to

stress the distinction of the migrant architects. For example, Chapter Five compares

SU Gin-Djih’s（徐敬直）nationalistic ideal and CHANG Chao Kang’s （张肇康）

regionalism ideal with LIANG Si Cheng’s (梁思成) nationalistic ideal. All the

comparisons help to build solid Mainland-Hong Kong connections

Although overall this is qualitative and exploratory research, it conducted

statistical analysis to deal with some quantitative aspects. For example, Chapter One

tries to conclude numerically the basic personal information about the sixty-seven

migrant architects, such as native places and educational background. The numbers

of architects born in the same city or educated in the same overseas countries are

51
The three architects are Robert FAN Wen Zhao（范文照）, CHU Pin（朱彬）, and LUKE Him-
sau（陆谦受）.

42
counted and percentages calculated from the numbers reveal collective characteristics

of the migrant architects. Chapter Two uses statistical analysis to study the timing of

the departure or arrival of the migrant architects in the 1949 migration. The numbers

of architects are counted who departed Mainland China or arrived in Hong Kong in

the same year. The numbers indicate the intensity of the migration. Moreover,

annual numbers are counted regarding the migrant architects in Hong Kong (Chapter

Two), Hong Kong Authorized Architects (Chapter Three), and post-war private

development (Chapter Four). This shows the overall tendency of growth over time.

The triangulation approach is adopted when data of different kinds and resources

are used together to study the same issue. For example, as mentioned above, various

primary data on LUKE Him-sau (陆谦受) are obtained from archive research, field

trips, and particularly interviews. There are images of drawings and photos, textual

works of poetry and papers, and documents such as client lists, certificates, resumes,

letters, diaries, notes, etc. When studying Luke’s design of the Wah Yan College

Chapel, the interview with Father Naylor reveals the client requirements; the original

drawings kept in the BD and the field trip help in the understanding of the design; the

archive of the college and the reports of the old journal The Builder provide original

images of the chapel; and a paper by Luke on the climate factors in Hong Kong

implies his architectural ideal. Each type of data may have its own limitation, but

together can reach a complementary conclusion.

Apart from the three main methods, this research also involves conventional

historical methods including case studies, sample surveys, situation analysis, trend

analysis, life histories and oral testimonies, etc. All the methods are used to better

analyze the primary data that have been colleted.

43
 6 Contributions and Delimitations

Aiming at a bifurcated history of modern Chinese architecture, this research may

contribute not only to the history of Hong Kong architecture, but also to the history of

modern Chinese architecture in the PRC.

On the Hong Kong side, the current knowledge of eight migrant architects may be

augmented if a total of sixty-seven migrant architects and their primary data could be

discovered. The Hong Kong architectural history may be understood in the context of

China if Mainland-Hong Kong architectural connections could be built through the

migrant architects and their migration and movements. The history of the HKIA may

be clarified if it could be found how the migrant architects’ effort helped to

successfully establish the society in 1956. Hong Kong architects’ practices may be

better related with the economic and social situation if a precedent could be set to

study client relations as a key link. The Hong Kong identity in the architectural field

may be broadened if the works of the migrant architects show a multiplicity of

Chinese identifications in architecture, which were transformed by Hong Kong’s post-

war environment. In other words, the research may achieve a comprehensive history

of Hong Kong architecture during the post-war era.

On the PRC side, existing understanding of the mainstream history of modern

Chinese architecture may be developed if a bifurcated history in Hong Kong provides

some distance to critically review the dominant history in the PRC. For example, the

periodization of the history may be changed if the “modern” period finds an important

continuation in Hong Kong after 1949. The bias in favor of Chinese architects trained

overseas in architecture may be reduced if it could be proven that the migrant

architects with various educational backgrounds made different contributions to the

architectural profession in Hong Kong. The over-attention on individual architects,

buildings, and cities may be lessened if it is found that a total of sixty-seven migrant

44
architects moved dynamically between different Chinese cities including Hong Kong

before and in around 1949. The over-emphasis on municipal, monumental and

commercial projects will be balanced if sufficient evidence shows that the migrant

architects designed various types of social welfare projects for Mainland refugees in

Hong Kong. The preference for a nationalistic ideal and the “Chinese style” of

architecture will be converted if the works of the migrant architects in Hong Kong

show a multiplicity of Chinese identifications in architecture at the levels of region

and city, apart from the dominant identity of the nation-state. In other words, this

research may contribute to a balanced history of modern Chinese architecture in the

PRC by writing a bifurcated history in Hong Kong.

It is worth noting four aspects of delimitation in this research. First of all, on the

eve of the CCP victory, Taiwan was the other important exit for Chinese architects

(Fu, 1995; Hsü, 1964). This research is confined to the Hong Kong case. Only those

architects who practiced both in Hong Kong and Taiwan after 1949 are mentioned,

such as KWAN Sung-sing（关颂声）.52

Secondly, in the post-1949 era, in parallel with the migrant architects in Hong

Kong’s capitalist system of the building industry, Chinese architects in Mainland

China entered a socialist system. This research focuses upon the Hong Kong side

with only a brief introduction to the situation in socialist China.53

Thirdly, in the 1949 migration, apart from the migrant architects, a large number

of Chinese contractors also migrated from Mainland China to Hong Kong. They

played important roles in the post-war building industry (Xiang-gang shang ye hui

bao 香港商业汇报, 1958). This research mentions the Shanghai contractor Paul Y

52
Facts related with Kwan are mentioned in Chapter Two, Section Three, Subsection Three.
53
The post-1949 Mainland situation is mentioned in Introduction Section One, and Chapter Five,
Section Two, Subsection One.

45
TSO (车炳荣)54 as a typical example who kept close association with many migrant

architects.

Fourthly, from around 1979 when China was re-opened to the West, another

large-scale architectural migration from Hong Kong to Mainland China began. More

and more Hong Kong architectural professionals entered the Mainland building

market. This research mentions only some of the youngest migrant architects’ works

in post-1979 Mainland China.55

It is suggested that what I have developed as bifurcated history in this research

may well need to be applied to the above four aspects, that is, “Mainland architects in

Taiwan after 1949”, “Chinese architects in socialist China after 1949”, “Mainland

contractors in Hong Kong after 1949”; and “Hong Kong architects in Mainland after

1979”. The bifurcated history in Taiwan could be considered a parallel development

with this research, and another different development from that in socialist China. An

overall interpretation of modern Chinese architectural history could be achieved by

examining the development in post-1949 Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China

together. Moreover, a complete picture of the Mainland-Hong Kong architectural

migration could be produced by integrating the movements of other building

professionals such as contractors, and by drawing a full circle migration of architects.

Obviously, this research, “Mainland architects in Hong Kong after 1949”, sets a

precedent for the above future research and is a significant step towards such a

bifurcated history.

54
For facts about Paul Y. Tso see Chapter Four, Section Four.
55
For example CHANG Chao Kang in Chapter Five, Section Three.

46
 Chapter One: The Migrant Architects

Chapter One focuses upon “architects”. It initially reviews the emergence of the

entire group of Chinese architects in China’s modern era, and then concentrates on

those who migrated to Hong Kong in around 1949, who are specified in this research

as “the migrant architects”.

During the late Qing Dynasty, Chinese architects emerged as one of the new

modern professionals in China. 1 As mentioned earlier, the emergence of Chinese

architects could be examined through studying their educational background (Huang,

1985). Therefore, the first section briefly reviews the architectural educational

background of the entire group of Chinese architects.

Around 1949, when the communist PRC was established, many Chinese architects

migrated to Hong Kong to continue their professional careers. The second section

attempts to propose conditions for identifying who were “the migrant architects”.

Based on investigation of archives, those architects who fit the proposed conditions

are discovered, and their data are presented visually in a figure designed for the

purpose. This provides for the analyses of collective characteristics of the migrant

architects including native place and educational background (Section Three). In both

sections (Sections Two & Three), those facts relating to Hong Kong are highlighted.

1 The Emergence of Chinese Architects

Architecture, the design and building of elegant and habitable structures and

environments, has been practiced in China for thousands of years (Boyd, 1962; Fu &

Steinhardt, 2002). Throughout its history in China, the craft of building was passed

1
For an overall introduction of Chinese professionals in the Republican era, see (X. Xu, 2001).

47
on from generation to generation by master builders to their apprentices. However,

from over the thousands of years of construction, only a few master builders can be

named (Zhu, Liang, Liu, & Yang, 2005).

The modern concept of architecture as an individual and collective intellectual

activity with professional responsibilities was first established in Europe in the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Kostof, 1977). It was transplanted to China

through different channels during the mid-nineteenth century.2 Chinese students who

were sent abroad to study engineering or architecture were equipped with Western

knowledge and acted as one of the channels of dissemination of the profession of

architecture. When they returned to China, they supplanted the master builders, and

became the first generation of “Chinese architects”.

Why were Chinese students sent abroad to study engineering or architecture?

Faced with losses in wars against Western powers and Japan from 1840, the Qing

government launched a series of reforms to seek change. For example, the Foreign

Affairs Movement (洋务运动)3 from 1860 aimed to modernize the Chinese military.

The New Policy Movement (新政运动) from 1902 was to reform Chinese educational,

military, industrial, as well as political systems. These reforms generated a need for

modern military and industrial structures, and consequently the need for modern

engineers and architects.

As early as the 1870s, the Qing government began sending Chinese students to

Europe and the United States (hereafter abbreviated as “US”) to study military-related

courses, including building construction. However, China’s defeat in the Sino-

Japanese War of 1895 influenced the Qing government to take Japan as another

2
See “The transplantation of a discipline: the emergence of architects and the development of
architectural education in modern China”, in (D. L. Lai, 2007), pp.115-181
3
The Foreign Affairs Movement was also called Self-strengthening Movement (自强运动).

48
important model for reform, given the success that Japan had achieved through the

adoption of Western approaches and technologies. Therefore, more students were

sent to Japan from the 1910s.4 An outstanding student among them was ZHANG

Ying Xu (张锳绪), who studied mechanical engineering and obtained architectural-

related training in Japan from 1899 to 1902. After returning, he published a book in

1910 on the modern ways of building construction (Fig.I-1).5 He was also appointed

by the Qing government to teach architecture in the Peking Industrial School, Board

of Agriculture, Work, & Commerce, China (中国农工商部北京工业学堂) in the

same year.6 As a result of Zhang introducing architecture as a discipline from Japan

to China, he was thereafter regarded as the first “Chinese architect”, in the modern

understanding of this term.7

While the earliest Chinese architects were from Japan, the most influential were

those from the US. Realizing that the training of Chinese students could help

strengthen US control over China,8 the US government decided to remit two-fifths of

China’s total Boxer obligation in 1908, to educate Chinese students in the US and to

establish in Beijing a preparatory school known as the Tsinghua School in 1911

(today known as Tsinghua University).9 From 1910 to 1929, the Tsinghua School

sent a total of twenty-two students to study architectural engineering or architecture at

American schools 10 . LIANG Si Cheng (梁思成, Liang Ssu-ch’eng, Fig.I-2) was

4
For a complete understanding of Chinese architectural students in Japan, see (S. B. 徐. Xu, 2005).
5
See (Zhang, 1910), also see “Tow topics on architecture of New Policy period of late Qing”, in (D. L.
Lai, 2007), pp.85-115, for the study on Zhang and the book.
6
The school, the first institute in China providing architectural training using a Japanese curriculum,
lasted for only a few months, due to the 1911 revolution which overthrew the Qing Dynasty.
7
See footnote 2 above.
8
(Smith, 1908), see pp.213-218
9
See (Hunt, 1972) for the American remission of the Boxer Indemnity.
10
See (D. L. Lai, 2007), p.134, for the twenty-two students’ list. More than half of them attended the
University of Pennsylvania. Others attended M.I.T., Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, the University
of Illinois, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Michigan.

49
probably the most famous of these students, as the first great Chinese architectural

historian (Liang & Fairbank, 1984). Through Liang, as well as other noted American-

trained Chinese architects, the Beaux-Arts tradition, which dominated American

architectural education and practice at that time, was also accepted as the dominant

architectural philosophy in twentieth century China (Qian, 2008; Ruan, 2002).

Apart from Japan and the US, some Chinese architects were educated in Europe.

Although there were fewer European-trained Chinese architects, they were more

important in bringing the influences of architectural modernism to China, for example,

the Department of Architecture at the St. John’s University in Shanghai, which was

the first department in China to adopt the Bauhaus system. The Head, HUANG Zuo

Shen ( 黄 作 燊 , Fig.I-3), studied at the Architectural Association School of

Architecture in London, (also known as AA School of Architecture), from 1933 to

1937. He then followed Walter Gropius to the US in 1938, and trained under him in

the Harvard Graduate School of Design. In 1942, Huang was invited to return to

China to found the department at the St. John’s University. He formed an

international faculty particularly with architects of European Bauhaus background.

Among them were Richard Paulick, a Bauhaus graduate and an assistant of Gropius in

Dessau; and A. J. Brandt, Eric Cumine, and LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受), graduates of

the AA School of Architecture (Lai, Qian, Wang, et al. c2004). The European

Bauhaus experimentation was short-lived due to the Soviet mentoring of China after

1949, but had profound influence on the emergence of modern Chinese architecture. I

will argue later that the European Bauhaus tradition was carried on though the

migration of teachers and graduates of the architectural department of St. John’s

University from Shanghai to Hong Kong.11

11
See Chapter Four, Section Two, Sub-section One for the continuation of the European Bauhaus line
from Mainland China to Hong Kong.

50
 Apart from those returned from overseas, there were, in fact, a large number of

Chinese architects trained within China. From the second half of the nineteenth

century, there were the Chinese who worked as draftsmen and superintendents in

foreign architectural firms, developing enough knowledge of architectural practice to

start business as architects on their own account.12 In 1896, China’s first Department

of Civil Engineering was founded in China’s first university, the Beiyang University,

in Tianjin. Subsequently, as many as thirty-three schools with civil engineering

department were established in China. 13 As a result, engineering-based architects

became prominent in the modern construction industry (Delande, 1995). It was from

the 1920s that architecturally-based architects began to take the place of engineering-

based architects. These were not only architectural students returned from overseas,

but also graduates of China’s architectural departments.

As mentioned above, China’s first institute providing architectural-related training

was the Peking Industrial School, founded in 1910. However, it lasted only several

months, due to the 1911 revolution which overthrew the Qing Dynasty. It was not

until the 1920s that China began to have its own fully fledged architectural

departments. The first department was founded in the Suzhou Industrial School (苏州

工业专门学校) in 1923, by several Chinese architects trained in Japan (Fig.I-4).14 In

1950, there were seven universities in China, providing architectural education.15 All

were founded by returned Chinese architects.16 One may ask why did China’s own

12
see (D. L. Lai, 2007), p. 127, for the 1932-1937 architect registration records of the PWD of the
Shanghai Special Municipality (上海特别市工务局) shows that, among one hundred registered
“technicians of the second class” (技副), fourteen obtained their knowledge in foreign firms.
13
Ibid., p.121
14
The Head of the school, LIU Shi Ying (柳士英), and some staffs ZHU Shi Gui(朱士圭), LIU Den
Zhen (刘敦桢), and HUANG Zu Miao (黄祖淼) were all graduates from Tokyo Polytechnic Institute.
For more about the school, see Ibid., pp.145-151; for the graduates of the school, that is the first
generation of China-educated architects, see (D. Lai et al., c2004), Part I.
15
(D. L. Lai, 2007), p.166
16
Ibid, pp.144-166

51
architectural education appear during the 1920s? There are at least four reasons for

this. Firstly, by 1929, the remaining Boxer Indemnity Fund was insufficient to

maintain the old training pattern (Hunt, 1972). It seemed that to establish new

departments in China was more practical than to send students abroad. Secondly,

with the return of the majority of the architectural students, newly-established

departments would have access to a sufficient supply of staff. Thirdly, the new

Nationalist Regime founded in Nanjing in 1927, was involved in increasing urban

construction works, and generated the need for more architectural professionals,

particularly those trained in China. Most importantly, the Nanjing Regime issued

laws on the registration of architectural professionals, which demanded that only

university architectural graduates could be registered as first class technicians. This

stimulated the establishment of China’s own formal architectural education. 17

Moreover, this, to some extent, prevented those trained through informal educational

systems, such as foreign firm draftsman-architects or engineering-based architects,

from retaining a central role in the industry and it provided more opportunities for the

returned Chinese architects as well as their students in China’s universities.

The variation in the places of training and influence of Chinese architects’

educational background can be verified by an account of the members of the Society

of Chinese Architects (Fig.I-5). The society, founded in Shanghai in 1927, was the

core organization for Chinese architects. From 1927 to 1940, only eighty-two

architects had the privilege of membership, though evidence shows that there were

more than 2,000 Chinese architects practicing in China before 1949.18 Among the

eighty-two, in terms of location, forty-one were trained in the US, four in France, four

in Britain, four in Germany, two in Belgium, one in Japan, one in Hong Kong and

17
Ibid, p.162. The author thanks Dr. Lai Delin for his comment to add the fourth reason.
18
(D. L. Lai, Wang, Yuan, & Si, 2006), p. 257; for the name list of the eighty-two architects, see p.223.

52
53
another twenty-five in Mainland China. In terms of the major subject in their training,

sixteen were engineering-based, and the rest architecturally-based.19 This indicates

that the majority of the most influential Chinese architects was architecturally-based

(eighty percent), and trained abroad (sixty-eight percent). This chapter will further

study the educational background of the migrant architects to see whether there is a

similar diversity of background and a similar high proportion of architecturally or

overseas training.20

2 The Migrant Architects

The migrant architects, the subjects of this research, were a group of the Chinese

architects, who left Mainland China for Hong Kong in, before, or after 1949. They

could not return to the Mainland, but had to settle down in Hong Kong due to the

closure of the Sino-British border in 1950, and the deterioration of conditions within

the Mainland during the following three decades from 1949 to 1979.

This research sets out to answer several questions. Who are “the migrant

architects”? How to define the migrant architects from general Chinese architects?

How many are they? What education did they receive, abroad or at home, as

engineers or architects? Can any collective features be concluded from individual

architects’ personal data?

19 See (Wang & Hui, 2004), p. 596, for my analysis on the educational background of the eighty-two
members. In addition, there was one, YAN Shu Tong (阎书通), educated in the Department of Civil
Engineering at the University of Hong Kong, 1914-1919.
20
See Section Three, Sub-section Two for the analysis of the migrant architects’ educational
background.

54
 With the aim of answering the above questions, this section sets out to identify

“the migrant architects”. Based on previous studies, 21 archive investigations have

been carried out. It is found that “the migrant architects” could be largely defined by

their concordance with three conditions:

1) They were Chinese;

2) They had professional experience in pre-1949 Mainland China, such as

studying or teaching architecture or engineering in the universities, practicing in

private firms, or working at government organizations; and

3) They continued their professional careers in post-1949 Hong Kong, which

could be particularly qualified by the registration of Hong Kong “Authorized

Architects” (currently known as “Authorized Persons”) under building ordinances.

Using this method of definition, at least sixty-seven migrant architects have been

identified.22

Four points concerning the definition should be further stated. First of all, why

choose the year of 1949 as a separation line? Wars and political or social struggles

have sent waves of Mainland immigrants to Hong Kong since the previous century

but, it was during the turbulent years around 1949 that the greatest influx occurred23

when the CCP defeated the KMT government in the full-scale civil war and

established the PRC government in the Mainland. Unlike the immigrants in earlier

waves who would eventually return to their homes on the mainland, the 1949

immigrants had to settle down in Hong Kong for a longer period, because of the

closure of the Sino-British border in 1950 due to the Cold War between the US and

the Soviet blocs.

21
Lung, 1997; Cody, 2002; Ng & Chu, 2004-2005; Chen & Cai, 2005; Lam, 2006. For more discussion
of these studies, see Introduction, Section Two, Sub-section Two, “The History of Mainland Architects
in Hong Kong”.
22
See Fig. I-6 and Appendix, for the basic data about the sixty-seven migrant architects.
23
See (Census & Statistics, 1969), p.14, Hong Kong’s population expanded from about 600,000 in
1945 to over two million in 1950, and to two and a half million in 1955.

55
 Similar situation occurred within the architectural profession. Before 1949, there

were continuous architectural exchanges between Mainland China and Hong Kong.

However, after a large-scale architectural migration from the Mainland to Hong Kong

around 1949, 24 Mainland-Hong Kong building dynamics were suspended for three

decades. The 1949 “migrant architects” had to stay and work in Hong Kong, and thus

played key roles in Hong Kong’s post-war urban restoration and redevelopment. That

is to say, the year of 1949 was a turning point when the Mainland-Hong Kong

migration pattern changed.

Moreover, the separation of 1949 sheds light on the differences in the migration of

the Chinese and the non-Chinese, and between the Chinese intellectuals and ordinary

Chinese people. It will be proven later that the majority of Chinese architects, as

Chinese intellectuals did not leave Mainland China until the late 1940s, while non-

Chinese architects or firms and ordinary Chinese people began to leave from the

1930s.25 This is because these Chinese architects and other intellectuals held patriotic

sentiments and nationalistic ideals to revive China, which would not have been shared

by non-Chinese architects or ordinary Chinese people. 26 Also the reasons for their

leaving China were different. 27 Therefore, the year of 1949 is highlighted in the

definition as well as in the title of this research.

Secondly, according to the “Chinese” condition, the term “the migrant architects”

excludes some important figures who do not fit the ethnic condition but basically fit

24
See Chapter Two, Section Two, “The pre-1949 Building Dynamics” between Mainland China and
Hong Kong. And see Chapter Two, Section Three, “The 1949 Migration” in the architectural field.
25
For more on the distinguishing features of the Chinese migration and the reasons for the 1949
migration, see Chapter Two, Section Three.
26
The author thanks Dr. Yeung, Wing Yu Hans for his reminder of this point in his email dated on
May 1st 2004.
27
See footnote 25 above.

56
the latter two conditions. Some architects, who were non-Chinese, had had much

Mainland experience, and relocated their business back to Hong Kong in the late

1940s. The British-origin firm, Palmer & Turner (hereafter abbreviated as “P&T”), is

a case in point. P&T was founded in Hong Kong in 1868. It opened its Shanghai

office in 1912 to participate in the golden era of Shanghai’s urban evolution, and

designed almost half of the major buildings along the Bund. It suffered badly during

the wars, and had to close down its offices in Shanghai in the late 1930s.28 The Hong

Kong office was reopened in 1946 after the end of the Japanese Occupation. It caught

up with the 1970s economic take-off, and designed more than twenty major buildings

in Central (1998; Purvis, 1985). Although the non-Chinese partners of P&T are not

identified as “the migrant architects” of this research, some of its Chinese employees

are included. 29

It is even more sensitive to exclude the Eurasians as another non-Chinese group.

Accurately speaking, they are half-European and half-Asian (Chinese), and therefore

might have a close Chinese relationship.30 Peter Hall, himself a Eurasian, studies this

minor but powerful group in Hong Kong (Hall, 1992). He lists names of some

prominent Eurasians, among whom Eric Cumine is the only architect. 31 Actually,

Cumine fits the latter two conditions well. He was born in Shanghai of a

28
The case of P&T can support the above argument that the non-Chinese architects or firms left
Mainland China earlier than Chinese architects.
29
For example, CHANG Harding Ding (张孝庭) and James O’YOUNG (欧阳泽生) both worked for
P&T’s Shanghai office. After migrating to Hong Kong, they joined P & T again. For more on them see
Chapter Four, Section Two, Subsection One.
30
Given the racial and other prejudices of the time, Hong Kong’s Eurasians may have identified with
and become members of either the European expatriate or the local Chinese community, rather than
assert themselves as a distinct community. Since they were not accepted as full members of the
expatriate community, for example, barred from becoming cadet officers, most chose to integrate with
the Chinese. (Tsang, 2004)
31
See (Hall, 1992), p. 122.

57
Shanghainese mother and a Scottish father who was also an architect.32 After being

educated in the A.A. School of Architecture in London, he first practiced in Shanghai.

He also acted as a part-time studio master in China’s first Bauhaus architectural

department at the St. John’s University in Shanghai in the 1940s. 33 In 1948, he

moved his business to Hong Kong, and played an important role in the building arena

(Ng & Chu, 2005). Although Cumine is not regarded as the migrant architect in this

research, his work and influence will be examined through his Chinese students or

colleagues. 34

Thirdly, according to the “pre-1949 Mainland experience” condition, this research

includes those who have dual background in Hong Kong and Mainland China before

1949. For example, both YEUNG Sik Chung (杨锡宗) and LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受)

were born in Hong Kong. However, after being educated abroad, they chose to work

in Mainland China, rather than in Hong Kong. It was not until 1949 that they had to

leave the Mainland. For their significant contributions to the modernization of

Chinese architecture, they have been considered the “first generation” of modern

Chinese architects within the Mainland (Yong Sheng Yang, 2002), and therefore,

should be included in this research.

There is another group of subjects who mainly worked in Hong Kong, but had run

their branch businesses in China’s modern cities from the 1930s,35 or went to work

32
This is according to a telephone interview with Stanley KWOK Tun-Li (郭敦礼) on 29 March, 2007.
He was once a senior partner of Cumine’s firm in Hong Kong. Kwok is one of the sixty-seven migrant
architects.
33
Cumine was among the few non-Chinese architects who stayed in Mainland China till the late 1940s.
34
For example, among the sixty-seven subjects, William LING Wei-li (林威理), CHANG Chao
Kang(张肇康), Stanley KWOK Tun-Li (郭敦礼), and Leslie OUYANG Chao (欧阳昭) worked with
Cumine in Hong Kong. For more on them see Chapter Four, Section Two, Subsection One.
35
Key examples are CHIU Kwan-chee(赵君慈), IU Tak-lam(姚德霖), MOK York-chan(莫若灿), and
SIU Ho-ming(萧浩明).

58
there due to the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong in the early 1940s, 36 and returned

to Hong Kong around 1949. They developed important pre-1949 Mainland

experience, which influenced their later work in Hong Kong in terms of clients and

partnerships. Moreover, their migration presents a distinct route pattern, which is

worth further investigation. 37 Thus, this group is defined under the “Mainland

experience” category, and included as part of “the migrant architects” subject, despite

their strong Hong Kong background.

Finally, it is necessary to explain the inclusion of Hong Kong “Authorized

Architects” (hereafter abbreviated as “AA”) registration as a key standard to define

the “post-1949 Hong Kong professional career”. The qualification requirements of

the AA registration need to be briefly introduced. In February 1903, Hong Kong

passed the Public Health and Building Ordinance,38 under which the term “Authorized

Architects” first appeared, and an annual AA list was thus to be prepared. According

to the rules passed later in June, the qualifications of an AA were:

“(a) He is over twenty-seven years of age; and

(b) He has worked exclusively as a Civil Engineer or Architect for at least eight

years, dating from the commencement of his pupilage or professional training; and

(c) He has had sufficient training and experience as a Civil Engineer or Architect

to justify his admission and is otherwise eligible.

With regard to (c), due weight will be given to any diploma held by the applicant,

especially to those issued by the Institution of Civil Engineers or the Royal Institute of

British Architects.”39

36
Key examples are CHAU Po Cheung(周宝璋), CHEUNG Kit Lam(张杰霖), LEE Yin Chuen(李衍
铨), SUN Yik Man(孙翼民), WONG Kwok Shuen(黄国璇), WONG Ting Ki(王定基), and WONG
Ting-Tsai（王定斋）.
37
See the discussions about Fig.II-6, for the movement of those Hong Kong-based architects escaping
from the Japanese Occupation.
38
Hong Kong Government Gazette, Government Notification (G.N.) No.94, February 27th, 1903
39
Ibid., G.N. No. 377, June 17th, 1903

59
 The AA qualifications in 1903 experienced little change until 1959, when the
40
Building (Administration) Regulations were passed. Comparing these two

regulations, the new 1959 regulation was more open and was divided into different

categories, so that the strict time requirements did not apply to all applicants.41 It can

be said that the requirements of the 1903 regulation which the arriving migrant

architects faced were strict. It was not surprising to find the existence of a number of

un-authorized architects, including local and the newly arrived Chinese, in the

1950s. 42 Therefore, those who were able to fulfill all the qualifications, and

successful registered as AA, deserve more attention.43

The above-mentioned three conditions help to clearly define the scope of the

research and highlight the most important subjects. Hitherto, the findings of the

archive investigations show that there are at least sixty-seven architects who fit the

three conditions and could thus be called “the migrant architects”. All are Chinese,

and had professional experience in both pre-1949 Mainland China and post-1949

Hong Kong.

40
See Ibid., G.N. No. A. 82, November 27th, 1959. The introduction of new qualifications was mainly
caused by the continuous debates between the two departments, Civil Engineering and Architecture, of
HKU, concerning the professional differences between them. For more discussions on this topic, see
Chapter Three, Section Three, “Architect vs. Engineer”
41
The new qualifications were opened to specified membership: UK registered architects, HKU
graduates, etc. Only two years’ practical experience was required for a graduate with an architectural
degree. In the case of HKU architectural graduates, only one year plus one examination was required.
42
See Chapter Three for the review of the history of the architectural profession in Hong Kong.
43
Only three out of the sixty-seven are not A.A. One is CHANG Chao Kang (张肇康), who was a
Harvard graduate and thus could have become an A.A. if he had applied. The other two are Canning
YOUNG Kai Mei （ 杨 介 眉 ） and David WONG Chung Hong （ 黄 颂 康 ） , who were HKU
architectural department lecturers, rather than practicing architects.

60
 3 Characteristics of the Migrant Architects

A figure is specially designed to visually present the findings concerning the

sixty-seven migrant architects (Fig. I-6)44. A brief introduction to the design of the

figure should be given. Horizontally, the top of the figure is a chronological axis.

From 1889 to the present (2007), it covers the life span of all the sixty-seven

architects.45 The main part below contains sixty-seven horizontal lines. Each line

represents an architect, normally starting from his (or her) year of birth and ending at

year of death.46 Different colors are used to indicate different places, where he (or she)

studied or practiced, with red representing Mainland China, blue Hong Kong, and

green overseas countries. Vertically, the sixty-seven lines are ordered according to

the chronological sequence of their birth. The lines of the eldest, who were born in

the 1890s, are placed at the top, while those youngest, born in the 1930s, are at the

bottom.

Based on chronological order, the use of different colors helps to reveal some

overall tendencies regarding the migrant architects. First of all, there is an obvious

color division in the figure from top to bottom at around 1949, with red on the left and

blue on the right. This indicates the fact that most of the sixty-seven architects

migrated from Mainland China to Hong Kong in approximately 1949. It strongly

supports my argument above concerning the significance of the year 1949, and that it

should be highlighted in the definition as well as in the title of this research.

Secondly, the color blue is not limited to the post-1949 area, but has a wider

distribution. In fifteen cases (twenty-two percent), there are blue dots marked at the

44
See footnote 22 above.
45
The eldest of them, YEUNG Sik-chung (杨锡宗), was born in 1889, and the youngest, Robert FAN
Zheng (范政) was born in 1930 and is living in California U.S.A. at the present time.
46
Ellipses are used at the end of lines where the death year or later part of life regarding that architect
is uncertain.

61
starting point of career lines, which indicates that these architects were born or based

in Hong Kong. In twenty-five cases (thirty-seven percent), there are blue segments in

the pre-1949 area, which indicates that these architects were educated or practiced in

Hong Kong even before 1949. Totally, thirty-three migrant architects (forty-nine

percent) were either born, trained, or practiced in pre-1949 Hong Kong. This tells us

that many architects had a strong Hong Kong background, which, I argue, can be

taken as an important aspect in the collective character of the migrant architects.

Thirdly, a varied color display can be observed in the pre-1949 area. It not only

has the majority of red, a wide distribution of blue, but also a high proportion of green,

appearing at the early phase of lines. This may imply that the migrant architects had

their dominant experience in Mainland China and a strong Hong Kong background.

Moreover, many of them were trained abroad. In other words, they may have had a

diversity of educational background.

The above overall tendencies need statistical verification. Based on the data of the

sixty-seven architects, two specific aspects are to be examined, that is, the migrant

architects’ native place and educational background. Both aspects involve study of

the location where the architects were born or based and where they were educated.

In the specification of the locations in the following discussions, the overseas

countries, which the green color represents in the figure, are further specified by the

names of the relevant countries. Mainland China, marked as red, is specified by four

Chinese domestic regions, that is, the Shanghai area, the inland area, Guangdong

Province, and Northern China. 47 Hong Kong, marked blue, is differentiated from

47
In order to control the variation, the analysis does not use the names of individual modern Chinese
cities, but concludes them into four regions, according to the distribution of the cities involved. The
Shanghai area and the inland area are particularly chosen, because of the two major shifts among the
Chinese architects (see Section Two, Sub-section Two, “Three Main Migrations”).

62
63
other modern Chinese cities, in order to highlight the migrant architects’ Hong Kong

background.

3.1 Native Place

The statistical analysis (Fig. I-7; Table I-1) shows: among the sixty-seven

architects, twenty-six originally came from Guangdong Province (thirty-nine percent);

fifteen from Hong Kong (twenty-two percent); fourteen from the Shanghai area

(twenty-one percent); one from Northern China (one percent), and two from overseas

countries (three percent).48

It should be noted that about twenty-two percent of the migrant architects had a

direct Hong Kong background, as it was their birth place. Moreover, about sixty-one

percent had a Cantonese background, if those from Guangdong Province are added,

because people in Hong Kong and its neighboring Guangdong Province share the

same Cantonese dialect. In addition, another three architects, who were of

Guangdong ancestry but born in Shanghai and New York, 49 are categorized into their

birth places.50 If they were included, the proportion of Cantonese would be higher

(sixty-seven percent).

In fact, Cantonese ancestry exerted a profound influence on these architects

through family and kinship.51 The Cantonese ancestry could be taken as part of the

collective character of the migrant architects.

48
As to the other nine architects, we are not sure of their native places at the current stage.
49
The three are SU Gin Djin(徐敬直), Robert FAN Wen Zhao (范文照), born in Shanghai; and LEE
Young-on(李扬安), born in New York.
50
The birth place is given priority over ancestral place because it had a direct and physical relationship
with the individual architect, which is the focus of this location study
51
See Chapter Two, Section Three, Sub-sections Two and Three, for more discussions on the relation
between the Cantonese ancestry and the reason of choosing Hong Kong as the destination of the 1949
migration.

64
 Hong
Kong Mainland China Overseas Others
Native Shanghai Northern
Place Guangdong Area China America Australia
No. of
Architects 15 26 14 1 1 1 9
% 22% 39% 21% 1% 1% 1% 13%
Sub-total 41 (61%)
15(22%) 41 (61%) 2(3%)
Total 67

Fig. I-7 &Table I-1 Native Places Analysis

3.2 Educational Background

As mentioned earlier, the First Generation of Chinese architects had various

educational backgrounds. 52 A statistical analysis reveals a similar diversity in the

migrant architects. It is shown (Fig. I-8, 9, 10; Table I-2, 3) that among the sixty-

seven migrant architects, in terms of location, fifteen were trained in Hong Kong

(twenty-two percent); three in Guangdong (four percent); nine in the Shanghai area

52
See Section One, “The Emergence of Chinese Architects”

65
(thirteen percent); twenty-six in the US (thirty-nine percent); twelve in Britain

(eighteen percent); one in Germany (one percent) and one in Australia (one percent).

In terms of their major subject, twenty-three received architectural training (thirty-

four percent); thirty-three engineering training (forty-nice percent); six had both

qualifications (nine percent); another three were informally-educated draftsmen (four

percent).53

When comparing the above analysis with that of the core members of the Chinese

Society of Architects discussed earlier,54 important similarities and differences can be

found. On one hand, like the core members of the society, the migrant architects

include a high proportion trained abroad (forty persons, sixty percent), particularly in

the US (twenty-six persons, thirty-nine percent). On the other hand, unlike the core

members of the society, the migrant architects show a greater proportion trained in

Hong Kong (fifteen persons, twenty-two percent) and Britain (twelve persons,

eighteen percent). In fact, education in Hong Kong was also British oriented, because

the majority (twelve persons) of the Hong Kong portion graduated from the British-

based University of Hong Kong. Together, we see a stronger British educational

impact (twenty-four persons, thirty-six percent). Moreover, they show a much greater

proportion with an engineering-base (forty-nine percent), while that in the society was

only twenty percent. Therefore, the strong British impact and the engineering

background, two major differences between the migrant architects and the

representatives of the First Generation, could be taken as another two aspects in the

collective character of the migrants.

53
Three migrant architects, AUYEUNG Kai（欧阳佳）, William LING Wei-li (林威理), and LEE
Yin Chuen (李衍铨), did not obtain formal architectural education, but developed their knowledge in
foreign or Chinese firms. For example, LING who received personal tuition from Eric Cumine in
Cumine & Co., developed from being an assistant (1930, Shanghai), to chief assistant (1949, Hong
Kong), and to partnership in the firm (1966, Hong Kong).
54
See footnote 52 above.

66
 Hong
Kong Mainland China Overseas
Educational Shanghai
Background Guangdong Area America Britain Germany Australia
No. of
Architects 15 3 9 26 12 1 1
% 22% 4% 13% 39% 18% 1% 1%
Sub-total 15(22%) 12 (18%) 40(60%)
Total 67

Fig. I-8 & Table I-2 Educational Background Analysis I

67
 Fig. I-9 Educational Background Analysis II

The Migrant Architects The First Generation

35 33 70 66

30 60

25 23 50
No. of Architects

No. of Architects

20 40

15 30

10 20 16

5 10

0 0
Architectural Training Engineering Training Architectural Training Engineering Training
Educational Background Educational Background

Educational Architectural Engineering

Background Training Training Both Draftsman Others
No. of Architects 23 33 6 3 8
% 34% 49% 9% 4% 12%
Total 67

Fig.I-10 & Table I-3 Educational Background Analysis III

68
 4 Summary

The chapter sets up to review the emergence of the first generation of Chinese

architects during the late Qing Dynasty. The review finds that educational

background is a key to understanding the emergence process. It appears that the

Chinese architects had various educational backgrounds. They were either trained

abroad or at home, either architecturally or engineering based, and were either

formally educated professionals or informally trained draftsmen.

Next, the chapter narrows its focus from the entire generation of Chinese

architects to a selected group, “the migrant architects”. Three conditions are proposed

to define the term, and investigation of archives are conducted to find those fitting to

the conditions. Hitherto, at least sixty-seven migrant architects have been found who

were Chinese, and who had professional experience in both pre-1949 Mainland China

and post-1949 Hong Kong. By visually presenting their personal data in a specially

designed figure, by adopting statistical analyses on the data of their native place and

educational background, and by comparing the data of the migrant architects with

those of the first generation of Chinese architects in general, several collective

characteristics of the migrant architects can be concluded.

On one hand, the migrant architects had some collective characteristics echoing

those of the first generation. In terms of education, the migrant architects also had

diverse backgrounds, with a high proportion trained abroad, particularly in the US.

On the other hand, the migrant architects had some distinctive collective

characteristics of their own. Their educational backgrounds show a stronger British

influence, and a higher proportion were engineering-based. Moreover, they had a

strong Hong Kong background as well as an overwhelming Cantonese ancestry.

69
 Chapter Two: The 1949 Migration

Chapter Two focuses on “architectural migration”. It firstly reviews the building

dynamics of the entire group of Chinese architects between China’s modern cities in

the Republican era. Then, it concentrates on the movements of the migrant architects,

including the pre-1949 movements and a special one happened in around 1949 from

Mainland China to Hong Kong. In this research, this special movement is termed

“the 1949 migration”.

The first section applies the point of view of urban network theory, and tries to

study the building dynamics of Chinese architects in a Republican architectural nexus.

The second section examines the pre-1949 movements of the migrant architects

instead of the entire group of Chinese architects. It aims at supporting the argument

on the Republican architectural nexus by using the data of the migrant architects’ pre-

1949 movements. Those movements relating to Hong Kong are highlighted, so that

Hong Kong could also be positioned in the nexus.

The third section studies “the 1949 migration”. It aims at exploring the question

of why these architects left Mainland China, why they left before, during or after 1949,

and why they chose Hong Kong, rather than other destinations. A statistical analysis

of the timing of the sixty-seven migrant architects’ departure from Mainland China

(or arrival at Hong Kong) suggests several reasons for their leaving Mainland China

(See Sub-section One). It also gives a brief account of the historical background of

the Chinese emigration worldwide in the late 1940s, which reveals Hong Kong’s

special attractions for the migrant architects (See Sub-section Two). The following

two Sub-sections Three and Four are in-depth case studies of individual architects.

The study of individuals’ personal choices when facing the 1949 migration may help

to reach a comprehensive understanding of the question of their motivation.

70
 1 Chinese Architects and the Republican Architectural Nexus

In the Republican China, more and more Chinese architects returned from

overseas countries or graduated from China’s universities. They chose to practice in

China’s modern cities and contributed greatly to the modernization of these cities. As

mentioned earlier in the introduction, by the early twentieth century, distinct urban

types had developed in modern China (Esherick, c2000). Urban construction

activities in these modern cities were initiated by different authorities, and carried out

by architectural professionals. Those activities in Republican strongholds such as

Shanghai, Guangzhou, Nanjing and Chongqing, were planned by the KMT

government, and were mainly designed by Chinese architects.

For example, in Shanghai, on the establishment of the Shanghai Special

Municipality (上海特别市) in 1927, an American-trained Chinese architect, DOND

Da You (董大酉) was appointed chief architect responsible for the Greater Shanghai

Projects (大上海计划), planning and designing the new civic centre at Jiangwan

District (江湾上海市中心区) (MacPherson, 1990) (Fig.II-1). In the capital Nanjing,

many important government projects were designed by Chinese architects, including

Sun Yat-sen’s Mausoleum (1925) by LU Yan Zhi （ 吕 彦 直 ); the Ministry of

Railways (1930) and Li Che Sheh Officer’s Club (1931) by FAN Wen Zhao (范文照);

the Ministry of Diplomacy (1932) by TONG Jun (童寯); the Central Athletic Centre

(1931) and the Central Archives (1934) by YANG Ting Bao (杨廷宝); and the

Central Museum (1935) by SU Gin-Djih（徐敬直）(Hsü, 1964) (Fig.II-2).1

1
Among these architects, Fan and Su are members of the migrant architects. See Chapter Five,
Sections Two & Four for the case studies on Su and Fan as well as the images of their projects listed
here.

71
72
 Moreover, there is evidence that many Chinese architects practiced in more than

one city in the Republican era.2 Sometimes, they themselves stayed in one city, but

designed projects for different cities at the same time. This implies that there were

many business connections among these modern cities. For example, LUKE Him Sau

(陆谦受) was a British-trained architect and chief architect of the Bank of China Head

Office Building Department in Shanghai. From 1930 to 1936, he stayed in Shanghai

but designed Bank of China office buildings, staff quarters etc., for sites throughout

the country. 3 Sometimes, both architects and their offices were relocated from one

city to another. For example, KWAN, CHU & YANG Architects, was the largest and

most famous firm run by Chinese in modern China. Although the firm had branch

offices in many cities, its head office, as well as its main partners, moved from Tianjin

to Nanjing in 1928, from Nanjing to Chongqing in 1937, and leaving Mainland China

for Taiwan in 1949, in order to keep up with the location shifts of the KMT

government’s centre of power.4 This is an indication that there was much movement

of architects within the urban network.

As mentioned earlier, from the point of view of urban network theory, people and

their migration patterns can be considered as invisible links to connect China’s

modern cities into an urban network. Applying this theory, Sheehan (2005) studies

the business connections of banks and bankers in 1936 Republican China and argues

that the study helps to form a financial nexus based on the Republican urban network.

Similarly, this research also argues that both above-mentioned business connections

and movements of Chinese architects were the invisible links forming an architectural

nexus. The following section will examine the data of the migrant architects to see

2
See the following Section Two, Sub-section One, “Practice Distribution”.
3
For example, see Section Three, Sub-section Four of this chapter for the case of LUKE Him Sau.
4
For example, see Section Three, Sub-section Three of this chapter for the case of KWAN, CHU &
YANG Architects.

73
whether their pre-1949 movements could support the existence of the Republican

architectural nexus, and whether their movements between Mainland China and Hong

Kong could substantiate that Hong Kong was a major node of the nexus.5

It is worth noting that Sheehan’s study, using the data of the specific year of 1936,

describes the shape of the financial nexus as uneven with multiple centres, denser in

the centre and less so in the periphery. However, this research, through relating

architectural connections and movements to different periods or special events of the

history, discovers a somewhat wider and different picture of the architectural nexus.

It appears that many Chinese architects shifted their practices to the Shanghai area6

from the 1920s, particularly in the 1930s; and then to the inland area after 1937.7

These movement trends should be interpreted in relation to their historical context.

Firstly, Shanghai, the treaty port opened in 1842, grew rapidly with the inflow of

foreign and domestic capital and soon came to dominate the urban hierarchy at the

beginning of the twentieth century. The First World War corresponded with a

temporary withdrawal of the Western powers, giving more room for the domestic

economy. The development of domestic power in Shanghai was further strengthened

by the establishment of the KMT government in the nearby city of Nanjing in 1927.

The government not only offered a period of stability, but also initiated the

5
See Section Two, Sub-section One, “Practice Distribution” for more discussion on Mainland-Hong
Kong architectural relations.
6
This research borrows Wong’s (Wong, 1988, pp.4-5) definition of “Shanghainese” to identify the
Shanghai area. It is the overlap between the Wu dialect region and the core of the Lower Yangzi urban
system, and thus involves three provinces, Jiangsu, Anhui and Zhejiang, and includes major modern
cities such as Shanghai, Nanjing, Ningbo, and Hangzhou.
7
The author’s unpublished Master dissertation (2002) examines Chinese architects and their
interregional migrations within Mainland China in the Republican era. The findings show when the
capitals of Republican China shifted from Beijing to Nanjing in 1928 and from Nanjing to Chongqing
in 1937, the location of Chinese architects’ practices also moved from north to south, and from coast to
inland.

74
aforementioned urban renewal plan of the Greater Shanghai Projects. Thus, many

Chinese architects were attracted to Shanghai because of its economic advantages,

social stability and the strong domestic background (Wu, 1997).

Secondly, after the outbreak of the full-scale Sino-Japanese war in 1937, the KMT

government had to retreat from Japanese-occupied capital Nanjing and the coastal

cities to the inland area (Eastman, 1991). Chongqing, an inland city, selected as one

of KMT’s alternative war-time capitals, was thus built from the margins of China’s

national politics and culture toward its centre (McIsaac, c2000). The deterioration of

conditions in the coastal cities and the increasing construction work needed in the

inland area led to another major shift in the domicile and area of employment of

architects. As a result, many Chinese architects came to the inland area due to these

political shifts and the threats of wars.

Therefore, I argue that the architectural nexus in the Republican era was not static

and stable, but dynamic and in a state of transformation. It was heavily affected by

China’s economic, social, and political situation, through the movements of Chinese

architects. 8 Here, at least, two distinct stages of the movements of Chinese architects

could be identified, according to the two turning points of 1927 and 1937. From 1927

to 1937, during the Nanjing decade, there was an evident shift to the Shanghai area.

From 1937 to 1945, during the Sino-Japanese War, there was a national retreat to the

inland area. The following section will examine the data of the migrant architects to

see whether they joined the two shifts to the Shanghai and the inland area. Moreover,

it will try to identify a third stage of movement, that is, from 1945 to the early 1950s,

there was a large-scale migration to Hong Kong.

8
For how the capital and political factors affected the interregional migration within China, see (He,
1959), Part Two, VII, population-land relation: interregional migration and IX other economic and
institutional factors, pp. 207-208.

75
 2 The Pre-1949 Building Dynamics

This section examines the pre-1949 movements of the migrant architects instead

of the entire group of Chinese architects. It aims to answer the questions raised in the

previous section:

1) Could the pre-1949 movements of the migrant architects support the existence

of the Republican architectural nexus? Could their movements between

Mainland China and Hong Kong substantiate that Hong Kong was a major

node of the nexus?

2) Did the migrant architects join the two migrations to the Shanghai area from

the 1920s and the inland area in the late 1930s? Could a third migration to

Hong Kong in the late 1940s be identified?

The above questions will be answered by analyzing the personal data of the migrant

architects.

2.1 Practice Distribution

As stated in the previous section, Chinese architects practiced in more than one

city during the Republican era. A statistical analysis (Fig.II-3) reveals a similar

diverse distribution of the migrant architects’ practices. The analysis categorizes the

Chinese cities where they practiced into the five domestic regions as specified in
9
Chapter One: the Shanghai area; the inland area; Northern China; Guangdong

Province and Hong Kong. The findings show, that among the sixty-seven migrant

architects, twenty-two practiced in only one region (thirty-three percent), thirty-four

in two regions (fifty-one percent), eight in three regions (twelve percent), two in four

9
Chapter One, Section Three, when analyzing the native place and educational background of the
migrant architects, proposes to conclude China’s modern cities into four regions according to the
distribution of the cities involved. The Shanghai area and the inland area are particularly chosen,
because of the two major shifts among the Chinese architects. Hong Kong is differentiated from other
modern Chinese cities to highlight its position in the architectural network.

76
regions (three percent), and another one in all five regions. This indicates that the

majority practiced in more than one region (sixty-seven percent).

It is worth noting that among those who practiced in more than one region,

twenty-six had Hong Kong as one of their practice locations (thirty-nine percent).

Therefore, another statistical analysis investigates these architects in order to highlight

their practice relations between Hong Kong and China’s other modern cities. The

analysis further specifies their Mainland practice locations by city instead of by region.

The findings show that among the twenty-six migrant architects, twenty practiced in

two cities, four in three cities, one in four cities, and another one in seven cities.

Taking the cities as nodes, with their practice relations as the connecting lines, a

picture can thus be drawn to illustrate Republican Hong Kong and Mainland

architectural relations (Fig.II-4). Closest relation could be seen between Hong Kong

and Guangzhou (seventeen persons), followed by Shanghai (six persons), Chongqing

(three persons), Guilin (three persons), Kunming (one person), and Tianjin (one

person). The closest relationship between Hong Kong and Guangzhou indicates that

the overwhelming Cantonese ancestry is one collective characteristic of the migrant

architects.

The above statistical analyses demonstrate that the majority of the migrant

architects, that is sixty-seven percent, had architectural business connections or

relocations between China’s modern cities. This supports the existence of the

Republican architectural nexus. Moreover, by highlighting the Mainland-Hong Kong

business connections of the migrant architects, it may be proven that Hong Kong was

a major node of the nexus.

77
 Fig.II-3 Practice Distribution Analysis

Fig. II-4 Republican Mainland-Hong Kong Archiectrual Relations

78
 2.2 Three Main Migrations

The following statistical analyses first test the argument that the Republican

architectural nexus was dynamic and undergoing transformation, through studying

whether the migrant architects joined the two main shifts of practices to the Shanghai

area from the 1920s and to the inland area from the late 1930s. Then, the analyses try

to identify a third shift of the migrant architects to Hong Kong in the late 1940s.

Three figures are thus drawn to trace the footprints of the migrant architects from one

region to another in different periods of the Republican era. Arrows in these figures

indicate the direction of movements. The weight of lines indicates the number of

architects who moved.

Fig.II-5 & Table II-1 highlights those who moved to the Shanghai area from the

1920s to 1930s. A total of fifteen migrant architects moved (twenty-two percent) to

Shanghai, with six from the US, two from Britain, one from Australia, two from

North China, two from the inland area, and the other two from Guangdong Province.

Among them, the majority were from overseas countries (nine persons). They were

returned Chinese students trained abroad. It should be noted that most of them

originally came from other areas of China,10 they did not return to their native places

to practice after receiving higher education abroad, but went to the Shanghai area. In

fact, from the 1920s, the Shanghai area attracted the most competitive Chinese

architects from other domestic regions as well as from overseas.

Fig.II-6 & Table II-2 highlights those who moved to the inland area after 1937

because of the Japanese Invasion and the retreat of the KMT government. A total of

twenty-two migrant architects moved (thirty-three percent), with three from the US,

two from Britain, six from the Shanghai area, six from Hong Kong, four from

10
Only two were originally from the Shanghai area, while five were from Guangdong Province.

79
Guangdong Province, and one from North China. It is worth noting that all those

from the Shanghai area arrived around 1937, while those from Hong Kong around

1942, which were the years when Shanghai and Hong Kong were occupied by Japan.

Most of the retreating architects returned to the Shanghai area and Guangdong

Province after Japan’s unconditional surrender in 1945. 11 This proved that the

Japanese Invasion was the main reason for the 1937 architectural retreat to the inland

area. For the same reason, some of the returned students from overseas who

graduated in the 1930s or 1940s were forced to join this retreat.

Fig.II-7 & Table II-3 highlights those who moved to Hong Kong from the late

1940s. All sixty-seven migrant architects came, with three from the US, three from

Southeast Asia, twenty-nine from Guangdong Province, twenty-three from the

Shanghai area, seven from the inland area, and the other two from North China. It is

worthy of consideration that the overwhelming majority (ninety percent) came from

Mainland China, particularly from the most advanced regions such as Guangdong

Province and the Shanghai area (seventy-six percent). Obviously, compared with the

above two shift, the third is of larger scale.

As shown in the above three figures, the movements of the migrant architects

within the nexus were heavily influenced by historical events in the different periods

of the Republican era. The relatively stable Nanjing decade (1927-1937), the

Japanese Invasion after 1937, and the conditions in the late 1940s directly resulted in

three collective movements, that is, a shift to the Shanghai area from the 1920s, a

retreat to the inland area after 1937, and a migration to Hong Kong in the late 1940s.

Why did the third shift, the migration to Hong Kong in the late 1940s occur? This is

the key question we will discuss in the next section.

11
Among the twenty-two migrant architects who retreated to the inland area after 1937, seven
remained there, while fifteen returned to the Shanghai area and Guangdong Province, in the late 1940s.

80
 North
From America Britain Australia Guangdong China Inland
No. of
Architects 6 2 1 2 2 2
Sub-total 9 6
Total 15 (22%)

Fig.II-5 & Table II-1 The Move to the Shanghai Area, 1920s-1930s

81
 Hong Shanghai North
From America British Kong Area Guangdong China
No. of
Architects 3 2 6 6 4 1
Sub-total 5 17
Total 22 (33%)

Fig.II-6 & Table II-2 The Retreat to the Inland, late 1930s

82
 Southeast Shanghai Northern
From America Asia Guangdong Area Inland China
No. of
Architects 3 3 29 23 7 2
% 4% 4% 43% 34% 10% 3%
Sub-total 7 60(90%)
Total 67 (100%)

Fig.II-7 & Table II-3 The Migration to Hong Kong, late 1940s

83
 3 The 1949 Migration

The 1949 migration, the key event in this research, was a special movement of the

migrant architects at the end of the Republican era. Its scale was much larger than the

previous architectural exchanges between Hong Kong and Mainland China. However,

it was the end of the exchanges and the beginning of a suspension for the three

decades from 1949 to 1979.

Why did the 1949 migration occur? In other words, why did the migrant

architects leave Mainland China? Why did they choose Hong Kong, rather than other

places, as their migration destination? And why did they migrate before, in or after

1949?

As Ge Jiang Xiong suggests, when studying the internal migrations of China,

attention should be paid to the two ends of a migration, that is, the place of departure

and its forces which drive migrants out; and the arrival place and its attractions which

draw migrants in (Ge, 1997, vol.1, pp.23-34). Following Ge’s suggestions, this

section will first examine Mainland China as the departure place, and its conditions in

the late 1940s. Secondly, it will compare Hong Kong with other alternative

destinations, to find the attractions of Hong Kong as the arrival place. Further, it will

study two typical cases, one a private firm and the other an individual architect, in

order to reveal individual architect’s choices, when facing the forces and attractions of

the 1949 migration.

3.1 Departure: Timing and Reasons

As to the departure place, what forces did Mainland China have that drove the

migrant architects out? The timing of their departure from Mainland China or arrival

84
in Hong Kong 12 may indicate the answers. Statistical analyses are conducted to

examine the timing issue. Table II-4 shows the annual number of the migrant

architects who arrived in Hong Kong. Fig.II-8 shows, over time, the change in the

cumulative total number of the migrant architects who practiced in Hong Kong.13

Some points should be noted by examining the figure and crosschecking with the data

in the table.

It is obvious that the figure is divided into two separated periods by a gap from

1942 to 1945, and the cumulative total number of the second period is much higher

than that of the first. For example, only twenty-five migrant architects (thirty-seven

percent) practiced in Hong Kong in the first period, while all sixty-seven migrant

architects (one hundred percent) did so in the second period. When crosschecking

with the data in the table, it can be seen that eight migrant architects (twelve percent)

arrived in Hong Kong in 1939, which was the peak of the first period. However, the

number soars in the late 1940s. As many as fifty-one architects (seventy-six percent)

arrived in the four years between 1946 and 1949, with 1949 recording the peak of the

second period (seventeen persons, twenty-five percent). In fact, the steep rise at the

beginning of the second period represents the 1949 migration, and the first period

represents the architectural exchanges between Hong Kong and Mainland China in

the Republican era, which we discussed earlier.14

12
For most migrant architects, the time of departure from Mainland China and that of arrival in Hong
Kong are the same. There were only a few exceptions. For example, as shown in Fig.II-7, some first
went to America and Southeast Asia to practice or study for a short time, and then came to Hong Kong
in the early 1950s.
13
Although there were some migrant architects arriving in Hong Kong each year, there were also some
leaving Hong Kong. Therefore, the cumulative total number in the figure is the result of both trends,
and is different from the annual number in the table which reflects the arrivals only.
14
See the discussions in Section Two, Sub-section One of this chapter.

85
 No. of No. of
Year Architects % Year Architects %
1920 1 1% 1945 1 1%
1924 1 1% 1946 12 18%
1925 1 1% 1947 12 18%
1932 2 3% 1948 10 15%
1934 1 1% 1949 17 25%
1935 1 1% 1950 4 6%
1936 2 3% 1951 1 1%
1938 3 4% 1952 2 3%
1939 8 12% 1953 4 6%
1940 2 3% 1954 1 1%
1941 3 4% 1958 2 3%
1961 1 1%
Sub-total 25 37%
Total 67 100%

Table II-4 Year of Arrival of the Migrant Architects

70

60

50
No. of Architects

40

30

20

10

0
20

23

26

29

32

35

38

41

44

47

50

53

56

59

62

65

68

71

74

77
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

Time

Fig.II-8 The Migrant Architects in Hong Kong

86
 What do the 1939 peak of the first period and the 1949 peak of the second period

indicate? As we know, on 7 July 1937, Japanese army units deployed near Beijing

started the full-scale invasion of China. This was quickly followed by a parallel

massive attack on Shanghai. In October 1938, after a year’s resistance and retreat, the

KMT government withdrew to its wartime inland capital of Chongqing, while

Guangzhou fell to the Japanese, and Nanjing suffered a brutal massacre (Eastman,

1991).

When studying the building dynamics between Hong Kong and Shanghai, Cody

(2002) points out that the Shanghai-based construction professionals began to seek

refuge in Hong Kong after 1932 when Japan’s first attack on Shanghai signaled a

severe slackening of construction activity in the city. Although his study focuses

primarily on non-Chinese architects,15 his interpretation that states that the war and

the business downturn led to the departure of architects from China is also true for the

Chinese. The 1939 peak reflects the fact that some migrant architects escaped to

Hong Kong when the full-scale Japanese Invasion of China broke out.

Similarly, the reasons for the 1949 migration could also be understood from the

historical context of wars and intense political struggles. The struggle between the

KMT and the CCP engulfed China in a full-scale civil war in the late 1940s, which

was fundamentally shaped and partly determined by the Cold War struggle between

the Soviet and US blocs (Westad, 1993). The CCP gained the upper hand in the civil

war and established the PRC government in 1949. With the intensification of the

Cold War in East Asia, the Korean War broke out in 1950, leading to the US and UN

embargoes against the PRC, and the closure of the Sino-British border in Hong Kong

in the same year (Tsang, 2004).

15
For more discussion on Cody’s study, see Introduction Section Two, Sub-section Two, “The History
of Mainland Architects in Hong Kong”.

87
 Therefore, the Japanese Invasion in the 1930s, the civil war and the rising power

of the CCP in the late 1940s may be the major forces in Mainland China that drove

architects to migrate. However, the fact that the 1949 migration was much larger than

the 1939 peak might tell something further. It implies that for the Chinese architects,

the situation in Mainland China in the late 1940s may have been far more serious than

that in the late 1930s.

The special reasons for the large-scale 1949 migrant could be revealed by

comparing the Chinese migration with that of the non-Chinese. The non-Chinese

architects, as Cody (2002) claims,16 began to leave Shanghai from 1932. The peak of

their departure could be signaled by the closure of the Shanghai office of the famous

Hong Kong firm, P&T at the end of the 1930s (P & T, 1998; Purvis, 1985). That is to

say, the peak of the non-Chinese migration is the late 1930s, rather than the late 1940s.

In contrast, the majority of the Chinese architects did not leave Mainland China in the

1930s, as did the non-Chinese following the wars and business downturns. They

either stayed in the Japanese occupied areas, or retreated to the inland area with the

KMT government. It was in the late 1940s, particularly the year 1949 on the eve of

the communist victory that the large scale migration occurred. In other words, the

rising power of the CCP may be one of the dominant forces that caused the 1949

migration.17

16
Ibid.
17
This conclusion could be further verified by the case studies in the following Section Three, Sub-
sections Three and Four. A similar conclusion has been reached by Wong (1988), who studies the
Shanghai entrepreneurs who also migrated to Hong Kong around 1949. He found that “when asked for
their reason for leaving Shanghai, the respondents’ stock answer was that is was the coming of the
Communists.” He concludes that the rising power of the CCP was one of the forces threatening their
elite position and already-acquired fortune in Shanghai. pp.16-20.

88
 3.2 Arrival: Migration Destinations

Why did the migrant architects choose to flee to Hong Kong? Were there any

other alternative migration destinations? Highly relevant research by Wong Siu Lun

(1988) may give some clues to the answer. Wong’s research subjects are the

Shanghai entrepreneurs who also migrated to Hong Kong around 1949. These

entrepreneurs were the major clients of the migrant architects both on the Mainland

and in Hong Kong.18 Facing the turbulent years of the late 1940s, the entrepreneurs

and the architects made the same decision to migrate to Hong Kong. Therefore,

Wong’s research provides some insights concerning the migration destinations.

According to Wong, access was one of the entrepreneurs’ major considerations.

Most countries had strict control on Chinese immigration in the late 1940s, and the

only places Chinese could freely enter were Hong Kong and Taiwan (Wong, 1988,

pp.20-21). For example, in South-east Asia, all gates were closing in anticipation of a

tide of Chinese refugees in the wake of the Nationalist collapse in China. In the US,

special permission was granted to about 5,000 Chinese to stay in the US on the fall of

the KMT. This, added to its annual quota of 105 for Chinese immigration,19 was still

extremely low when compared to the huge population who were struggling to leave

China. By contrast, in Hong Kong, an estimated 1,285,000 refugees arrived between

September 1945 and December 1949, 20 while in Taiwan, more than one million

arrived from 1946 to 1950.21

18
For more information about the co-operation of the migrant entrepreneurs and architects, see Chapter
Four, Section Four, “Designing for Mainland Entrepreneurs”.
19
According to Wong (1988), the annual quota of 105, was the lowest allocation the U.S. had given to
any nationality, and was created as late as 1943, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed, after
having been in action since 1882.
20
See (Hambro & Mission., 1955), p.148, cited in (Wong, 1988), p.23
21
See (Ho & Yale University. Economic Growth Center., 1978), p. 105, cited in (Wong, 1988), p.22

89
 As well as ease of entry, Wong also points out other attractions that Hong Kong

had for the entrepreneurs, such as, Hong Kong’s Chinese cultural background, relative

political security, and a flexible and responsive attitude adopted by the Hong Kong

government towards the entrepreneurs.22 The latter two reasons made Hong Kong the

better choice for the entrepreneurs, than Taiwan. In fact, there were still intense

struggles between the CCP and the KMT along the Taiwan Strait. And, the KMT

administration had a bad record of bureaucratic capriciousness and excessive red tape

in the post-war era, and exercised direct control over industry and limited growth in

the private sector, once installed in Taiwan.

Like the entrepreneurs, architects were also facing the same restriction on Chinese

immigration in most countries in contrast to the ease of entry in Taiwan and Hong

Kong, and the same political obstacles in Taiwan as compared with the relative

security and other attractions in Hong Kong. Therefore, it would be not surprising

that the migrant architects would make the same decision as the entrepreneurs to go to

Hong Kong.23

Moreover, the entrepreneurs’ decision, to some extent, influenced that of the

architects, because the architects had to catch up with their major clients, who shifted
24
business to Hong Kong. According to Stanley KWOK Tun-Li ( 郭 敦 礼 ), a

Shanghai-based migrant architect, the entrepreneurs’ emigration left few commissions

for the architects to work on in post-war Shanghai. That is the reason why some

Shanghai architects also came to Hong Kong, in order to continue their former

business connections.25

22
See (Wong, 1988), pp.21, 23-25
23
The choice of Hong Kong and Taiwan will be further discussed in the following Section Three, Sub-
sections Three and Four.
24
According to the interview with Stanley KWOK Tun-Li (郭敦礼) on 14 May, 2007
25
See footnote 18 above.

90
 Apart from the entrepreneurs’ viewpoints and influence, it is necessary to explore

the unique choices made by individual architects. Thus, in the following two sub-

sections, several architects’ choices will be studied in two cases:

1) A top Chinese architectural firm, Kwan, Chu and Yang Architects (基泰工程

司); and

2) An individual Chinese architect, LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受).

Light will be shed on their attitudes towards the rising CCP power, their choice

between Taiwan and Hong Kong, Hong Kong’s special attractions for the architects,

as well as the distinguishing features of the Chinese migration.

3.3. Kwan Chu & Yang, Architects (基泰工程司)

KWAN Sung Sing CHU Pin YANG Ting Pao

(关颂声, 1892-1960) (朱彬, 1896-1971) (杨廷宝, 1901-1982)

Fig.II-9 Three Partners of KC&Y Source: (Lai, Wang, Yuan, & Si, 2006)

The firm, Kwan Chu & Yang Architects (hereafter abbreviated as “KC&Y”), is

selected as a subject for the study, not only because it was one of the most famous and

largest Chinese architects’ firms in Republican China, but also because its three key

partners, KWAN Sung Sing (关颂声), CHU Pin (朱彬), and YANG Ting Pao (杨廷

宝) (Fig. II-9), responded to the 1949 migration differently. Kwan moved to Taiwan,

Chu came to Hong Kong, while Yang stayed on the Mainland. Therefore, it is

91
necessary to examine the reasons why the individual partners in the same firm made

such different decisions.

After Kwan founded the firm in 1920 it became so successful that it had branches

throughout the country in cities such as Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Nanjing,

Chongqing, and later in Hong Kong and Taiwan. It designed a large number of

important projects in these cities (Fig.II-10). Its success was due mainly to its

partners’ professional skills26 , and the committed cooperation between them. The

three partners were all trained in the US. Kwan first graduated from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (hereafter abbreviated as “MIT”) in 1917, and

then from Harvard University in 1918. Chu and Yang graduated from the University

of Pennsylvania (hereafter abbreviated as “U. Penn”) in 1923 and 1925 respectively.

Kwan was in charge of the external business, Chu, internal administration, and Yang,

project design.27

The success of the firm should also be attributed to Kwan’s personal relationships

with senior members of the KMT government. He came to know SONG Zi Wen (T.

V. Soong, 宋子文) and SONG Mei Ling (Soong, Mei-ling, 宋美龄)28, during his

26
The success owed much to Yang’s talent. Among the U. Penn. architectural graduates, Yang is most
prominent. He had been the favorite student of Paul Philippe Cret, and won many prizes such as the
Emerson Prize Competition, the Municipal Art Society Prize Competition in 1924, and the Warren
Prize in 1925. After returning to China, he became the most productive Chinese architect of his time,
designing or supervising almost a hundred projects. He has been respected as the master architect of
twentieth century China. For studies on Yang, see (Lai, 2007; Lai et al., 2006; Y. Liu & Li, 2006; Ruan,
2002).
27
See (Zhang, 1994), p.12. The book is an autobiography by Zhang Bo, a student of Yang, who later
became a senior member of the firm. From 1949 to 1951, Zhang came to work in Hong Kong,
following Kwan and Chu’s instruction. From 1951, he returned to Mainland China, and became a key
architect in the CCP government. He designed many important projects in Beijing, some of which in
cooperation with Yang, his former supervisor. His autobiography gives an inside account of the firm
around 1949.
28
In the KMT government, T. V. Soong served as governor of the Central Bank of China and Minister
of Finance (1928 - 1931, 1932 - 1933); Minister of Foreign Affairs (1942 - 1945); and President of the

92
study in the US. He later developed wide business connections with administrative

and financial officers of the party and the government.29 As a result, the firm was

awarded with many government projects. In order to maintain a close relationship

with the KMT, the firm always kept up with the location shifts of the KMT

government’s central power. Although it had branch offices all over the country, its

Head Office was moved from Tianjin to Nanjing in 1928 at the beginning of the

Nanjing regime; and retreated from the Japanese-occupied capital Nanjing, to the war-

time capital Chongqing in 1938 (H. Wang, 2002). So, it was not surprising that Kwan,

as the founder of the firm, decided to follow the KMT government and relocate the

Head Office to Taiwan in 1949.

Chu, as the second figure of the firm, kept close family ties with Kwan by

marrying Kwan’s sister. However, why did he not go to Taiwan with Kwan and

become instead, the director of the Hong Kong branch? In fact, Hong Kong was a

crucial place for both Chu and Kwan. Firstly, Hong Kong was relatively safe under

the protection of the British flag compared with the Taiwan Strait, where struggles

between the CCP and the KMT continued (Tsang, 2004). That is to say, Hong Kong

could serve as a safe place for Kwan, if Taiwan was under CCP attack. This could be

substantiated from the fact that Kwan maintained a side practice in Hong Kong, as

well as his primary practice in Taiwan. He was registered as Hong Kong Authorized

Architect from 1949 until he died in 1960.30

Hong Kong was a place which also answered the need for a sense of identity. In

Hong Kong both Kwan and Chu could easily develop a sense of belonging. Firstly,

Executive Yuan (1945 - 1947). Soong, Mei-ling, his sister, was the wife of the president Jiang Jie Shi
(Chiang Kai-shek, 蒋介石).
29
(Zhang, 1994), p.21
30
See annual lists of Authorized Architects, Hong Kong Government Gazette.

93
Hong Kong was Kwan’s birth place31, and the death place of both architects. The fact

that Kwan was buried in Hong Kong rather than Taiwan, could be taken as evidence

of his identification with Hong Kong. Traditionally, the Chinese prefer to be buried
32
in their hometown. Secondly, the native place of both Kwan and Chu was

Guangdong Province, the general region which Hong Kong was a part of and from

where most of its population originated. The native language of Kwan and Chu was

Cantonese, which is the dominant language of Hong Kong’s majority Chinese

population. They spoke Cantonese among their family members and friends even

though they had been in northern China for many years.33 Apparently, Hong Kong

was given priority because of the mutual Cantonese background.

Finally, for practical reasons, Hong Kong provided a well prepared base for the

firm’s operations because their kinsmen from Guangdong Province had developed

long-standing business connections here even before 1949. For example, Kwan’s

cousin, KWAN Wing-hong ( 关 永 康 ), a London A.A. School trained architect,

registered as Hong Kong Authorized Architect in 1938 and had maintained an

association with KC&Y since the pre-1949 era. 34 Their co-operation included the

design of the Hong Kong Telephone Co., Ltd. Building, Kowloon, in 1948. (Fig. II-

11)35

Yang, the design director of the firm, refused several invitations from Kwan and

Chu, and decided to stay in Mainland China in 1949. This was partly because his

31
(Lai et al., 2006)
32
The tradition of native place burials is particularly obvious when it comes to overseas Chinese. In
fact, Hong Kong had long functioned as a way station for the transshipment of the dying or dead back
to Mainland China until the 1949 closure of Sino-British border (Gao, 2006).
33
(Zhang, 1994), p. 18
34
See Kwan’s application form for Hong Kong Authorized Architects (P.R.O. file no. HKRS 41-1-
774-1)
35
According to (Zhang, 1994), p. 54

94
background. Yang came from a peasant family in Henan Province, Northern China.

Although he and Chu were university alumni at U. Penn, he was less involved in the

decision-making core than Kwan and Chu.36 It seems that family and kinship are

closer than academic ties in Chinese economic life.37 More importantly, I believe,

Yang’s decision was to some extent politically oriented. Two of his younger brothers

had joined the CCP. Their political beliefs were very likely to have influenced his

decision (X. Liu, 1986).

This case indicates that together, political concerns, business connections, and

family or kinship resulted in Kwan, Chu, and Yang’s different decisions when facing

the 1949 migration. There is little doubt that the rising power of the CCP was the

fundamental force that led to Kwan’s leaving, Yang’s staying, and ultimately the

firm’s dispersion. As a result, Kwan relocated the Head Office to Taiwan with the

defeated KMT government, and actively practiced there in the 1950s. Fig.II-12

shows one of the Taiwan KC&Y’s (台湾基泰) projects. Meanwhile, Yang witnessed

the new regime of the CCP on the Mainland. He ceased practicing as a private

architect, and became a university professor. In the early 1950s, he still designed

some government projects such as the Peace Hotel in Beijing (Fig.II-13) in a

modernistic style. However, because of the changing political situation, soon after its

completion the hotel was under criticism for its “capitalist” appearance.38

36
According to (Zhang, 1994), the firm’s ownership in 1947 was as follows: Kwan thirty percent share,
Chu twenty-two percent, and Yang twenty percent.
37
It is widely recognized that family and kinship are the mainstays of Chinese society and that they
were the centers of loyalty for every Chinese at least in the late traditional period(Wong, 1988, p.132).
It is noteworthy that I find that academic connection is another important base for solidarity. See
Chapter Four, Section Two, Sub-section One, “Resumption of Former Professional Relationships”.
38
The new PRC was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union. “National in Form, Socialist in Content”
conceived by Stalin in 1930 was declared by the PRC as a guiding principle for cultural development.
In this context, architectural style became a kind of political symbol. When the Peace Hotel was built in,
the early 1950s, the traditional big roof stood for China’s national style and socialist content, while the
box-like modernistic style was opposed as signifying capitalism (Hsü, 1964).

95
96
 Between the conflicting extremes of Mainland China and Taiwan, Hong Kong

played a valuable neutral stance, where Chu continued the firm’s fruitful

achievements. The first important project of the Hong Kong KC&Y (香港基泰) was

the Man Yee Building in the Central (Fig.II-14), which affirmed the firm’s profile as

expert in office building designing.39

3.4. LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受)

Luke (Fig. II-15) was chosen as the subject for the study

because of his high reputation, his legendary life, and his

distinctive struggles facing the 1949 migration.40 As one of

the most eminent Chinese architects in modern China, he

designed the Bank of China Building on the Bund Shanghai

(Fig. II-16).41 Though he was born and raised in Hong Kong,

and trained in London, he dedicated the first half of his career Fig.II-15 LUKE Him Sau
to Mainland China. He did not leave China throughout the (陆谦受, 1904-1991)
Source: contributed by the
war of the late 1930s until 1949. He once went back to Luke family
Mainland China in 1950, after coming to Hong Kong in 1949.

Though he lost everything in the 1949 migration, he never regretted the twenty years

in the Mainland. He even gave his grandsons the second name of “Hua” (华) to

represent and commemorate “China” in his heart. 42 Viewed from a rational attitude

39
For more about the Man Yee Building and other office buildings designed by the Hong Kong branch,
see Chapter Five, Section Five, “Chu Pin (朱彬): From Nationalism to Urbanism”.
40
Though Luke has been regarded as one of the most eminent modern Chinese architects in the PRC,
as the designer of the Bank of China Building on the Bund, Shanghai, his life was to a large extent
unknown to the public until the author of this research made contact with Luke’s descendants in Hong
Kong at the end of 2006. See (H. Y. Wang, 2007), for the records of two important interviews between
the author and Luke’s middle son and granddaughter.
41
The designs were in co-operation with P & T. See (H. Y. Wang, 2007).
42
According to the interview with LUK Shing Chark (陆承泽), Luke’s middle son, on December 13th,
2006, see (H. Y. Wang, 2007).

97
such as that adopted by Kwan and Chu, Luke’s decisions might not be thought correct

because he ignored the threats of wars and political struggles, and showed an

idealistic devotion to “China”, which was also shared by many other Chinese

architects and intellectuals of his time. Therefore, Luke’s case could help to shed

light on this shared idealistic devotion, which, I believe, caused the difference

between the Chinese and the non-Chinese migrations.

Luke’s first idealistic decision was made when he graduated from the A.A. School

in London in 1930 (Fig.II-17). At that time, there were two choices before him; to

come back to Hong Kong to inherit his father’s extensive properties; or to go to

Shanghai, a totally new place for him, to work as an architect in the Bank of China.

Hong Kong was Luke’s hometown. He had lived here since birth, apart from the

three years (1927-1930) studying architecture in London. His father, LUKE Cheuk

Man (陆灼文, Fig.II-18), who originally came from neighboring Guangdong Province,

was successfully established in Hong Kong. He hoped that Luke, his favorite

youngest son, could come back as his successor.

It is worth noting that Luke Cheuk Man provided a good Chinese education for

Luke. Although being a successful businessman, Luke Cheuk Man accepted the

traditional thinking that the scholar had the highest status in society. He himself

failed to pass the imperial examination at the country level (Xiu Cai, 秀才) before

coming to Hong Kong, and left his unfulfilled dream to Luke. He invited his friend,

WU Dao Rong (吴道镕), Member of Imperial Academy (Han Lin, 翰林), to teach

Luke Chinese. He also made great effort to build his house in a definite Chinese style.

As shown in Fig.II-19, the house on Hau Fung Lane, Ship Street, Wanchai, where

Luke lived from 1910 to 1927, was in traditional Chinese style that represented the

owner's Chinese taste, and contained many Chinese books bound in the traditional

98
manner. With such a cultivated background Luke was very skilled in Chinese,

particularly in composing Chinese poetry, 43 as well as in English which was the

primary language of the education he received in Hong Kong. Therefore, it would be

not surprising that he should develop a deep devotion for “China”, although living in

Hong Kong on China’s geographical periphery.

Hong Kong was also the initial place for his architect career. Before he went to

the A.A. School in London in 1927,44 he spent four years (1923-1927) working in the

Hong Kong firm of Messrs. Denison, Ram & Gibbs Architects, Civil Engineers &

Surveyors (建兴), and he developed his basic knowledge of architecture as well as the

building market in Hong Kong. On the other hand, he felt that to work in Shanghai

was a challenge worth trying. During his study in London, Luke once met CHANG

Kia-ngau (张公权), the manager of the Bank of China. Chang was impressed by

Luke’s talent and invited him to work for the bank after graduation.

What was Luke’s decision? He took Chang’s invitation and was sent by the Bank

of China on a tour of banks in Europe and the US 45 after graduation. His travel

43
Luke won several prized in Chinese when studying at St. Joseph’s College, Hong Kong. He also
wrote many poems, a collection of which is now preserved by LAI Tim Chong (赖恬昌), his friend, a
famous Hong Kong scholar in classical translation and calligraphy. The author very much appreciates
that the Luke family helped to contact Lai and obtained the copy of the collection for this research.
44
According to Luke’s AA diploma in 1930, he completed a five years of study and six months of
practice. Another report card for 1927-1928 says "third year" and a report card for 1929-1930 says
"fifth year". However, Luke’s application form for the US immigration in 1967 shows that he studied
in the AA School from 1927 to 1930. The author tries to interpret this contradiction as the AA School
may acknowledge Luke’s practice in the Hong Kong firm Messrs. Denison, Ram & Gibbs Architects as
part of his study period. The author also thanks Luk Men-Chong for pointing out this contradiction and
providing the copy of the certificates and the application form.
45
According to Luke’s diaries of the travels , which contributed by the Luke family, his trip in Europe
including:
France (nine days) – Paris;
Italy (six days) - Rome
Hungary (three days) - Budapest

99
diaries and notes (Fig.II-20) show that he carefully studied bank buildings in each

country that he visited, so that he could be more capable in the new job. His

preparations were rewarded. He was soon appointed as the chief architect of the Bank

of China Head Office Building Department in Shanghai, and designed the Bank of

China office buildings, staff quarters, etc., throughout the country in the cities such as

Shanghai, Nanjing, Qingdao, Jinan, Xiamen (Amoy), Shantou (Swatow), Shengyang

(Yingko), Guiyang, Kunming and Chongqing (Fig.II-21).

It is difficult for us to judge whether he made the correct decision in 1930. In

1949 when he and his family migrated to Hong Kong, he had lost everything on the

Mainland. At that time, his father had been dead for more than ten years. Their house

in Wan Chai had been damaged during the Japanese Occupation so he had to re-

establish everything without much support. However, for Luke, the answer was clear.

He had been saying time after time that he never regretted his decision in 1930.

Moreover, though he later designed many projects in Hong Kong,46 Luke thought of

his work in Mainland China as the most important part of his career.47 It was the

challenge of the unknown in his career in Shanghai, rather than the existing

opportunities in Hong Kong, that Luke referred to. It was his devoted Mainland

experience, rather than his productive businesses in Hong Kong, that he highly valued.

All this undoubtedly reveals his idealistic personality and his devotion to “China”.

Czechoslovakia (three days) - Prague

Austria (eleven days)
Switzerland (eight days) - Geneva, Zurich
Germany (twenty-six days) - Stuttgart, Dresden, Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Cologne
Belgium (three days) – Brussels
Holland (three days) – Amsterdam
Denmark (three days) - Copenhagen
Sweden (four days) – Stockholm
And then, he continued his trip to the U.S.
46
For Luke’s commissions in Hong Kong, see Appendix.
47
See footnote 42 above.

100
 Luke’s second idealistic decision was made in 1937, when the full-scale Japanese

invasion of China broke out, and when the KMT government as well as the Bank of

China retreated to the inland capital Chongqing. There were multiple choices before

Luke; to stay in Shanghai,48 to go back to Hong Kong, or to retreat to Chongqing.

By 1937, Luke had established a high reputation among Shanghai’s Chinese

architects as a result of choosing to go to Shanghai in 1930.49 He also built his self-

designed house, Dah Hsia Villa (大夏新村), in Chung Shan Road, Shanghai, where

he used to meet other Chinese architects and colleagues, and had a happy family life

(Fig.II-22). LUK Shing Chark (陆承泽), Luke’s middle son, still remembers the

house’s spacious gymnasium room and large garden, though he was only two years

old in 1936. Deciding to retreat to Chongqing meant leaving all these behind. Luke

did think of the choice of Hong Kong for security reasons and actually sent his family,

his wife and three sons, back to his father’s house in Hong Kong in 1936.

Finally, he decided to retreat to Chongqing, at the cost of leaving his house in

Shanghai and his family in Hong Kong. He continued to work for the bank, and was

more involved in governmental and institutional services, including being Technical

Consultant, Air Raid Shelters Construction Committee (1941); Research Member, Air

Raid Precaution Research Council (1943); Member of the Society for Research on
50
Chinese Architecture ( 营 造 学 社 ); Committee Member, Chinese Institute of

48
After 1937, there was still room for Chinese architects to work in Shanghai for the existence of other
imperial powers apart from the dominant Japanese power. For example, Robert FAN Wen Zhao (范文
照), the first President of the Chinese Society of Architects stayed and worked in Shanghai after 1937.
49
He was elected vice president of the Chinese Society of Architects in 1935. The journal of the
society, The Chinese Architects, has published several special issues on works of the most eminent
Chinese architects, including one on Luke, See The Chinese Architects, no. 26, 1936.7
50
According to the interview with Luk Shing Chark on December 13th, 2006, Liang Si Cheng (梁思成)
and Lin Hui Yin （林徽因）visited Luke in 1944. This could be the direct reason for Luke’s joining
the Society in the same year.

101
Engineers Materials Testing Committee; and Architectural Consultant, the Bridge

Construction Co. of China (1944).

He designed the residential district of Hong Yan Xin Cun (红岩新村), which

included the residence for SONG Zi Wen (T. V. Soong, 宋子文) (Fig. II-23) and also

designed his own second house. In 1938, he sent his family from Hong Kong to

Chongqing, via Vietnam and Kunming. Luk Shing Chark, a four-year child at that

time, remembers how “exciting” the trip was. The plane from Kunming to

Chongqing landed on a river. Upon landing, he noticed his mother hid herself away

to cry because she had been so frightened. He also remembers the frequent bombings

and air raids, which became normal happenings during the eight years (1938-1946) of

his childhood in Chongqing. 51

As above mentioned, most non-Chinese architects left China during the 1930s due

to wars and business downturns, however the majority of Chinese architects, among

whom Luke was an outstanding example, disregarded these negative aspects, and

retreated with the government to the inland cities. They took on the responsibility of

construction and defending China against the Japanese Invasion, even at the cost of

risking their lives.

Luke’s third idealistic decision was made in 1949, when the CCP won the civil

war and established the new PRC regime. Luke had the possibility of coming to

Hong Kong, which was his hometown. There was also the possibility of going to

Taiwan, because he had been working for the Bank of China, the KMT’s central bank

for almost twenty years and had also engaged in many governmental services and

projects. In fact, he did successfully register as an Authorized Architect both in Hong

51
According to the interview with Luk Shing Chark on 11 April, 2007.

102
Kong and Taiwan in 1949 (Fig.II-24).52 However, the possibility of staying in the

Mainland was uncertain because his relationship with the KMT government was

certainly a barrier.

Luke made the decision to temporarily return with his family to Hong Kong in

December 1948 because Hong Kong held neutral political stance between the KMT

Taiwan and CCP Mainland, and to wait and see whether the CCP’s anti-capitalist

stance was serious. After the establishment of the PRC on 1 Oct., 1949, news came

from his friend LIANG Si Cheng (梁思成, Liang Ssu-ch’eng, 1901-1972), who was

the most influential Chinese architectural historian in the twentieth century. Liang

himself had stayed in Mainland China, and was convinced that the CCP would be a

good government in terms of architectural conservation and education. 53 He

encouraged Luke to return to Mainland China, for there were good opportunities at

least in universities such as Tsinghua.54 Persuaded by his trustworthy friend, Liang,

and I believe, driven by his patriotic feelings for China, Luke went back to Shanghai

in 1950.

52
For his Hong Kong registration, see P.R.O. file no. HKRS 41-1-4882 and, see Fig.II-24 for his
Taiwan certificate, contributed by the Luke family.
53
Liang was amazed when some CCP’s officials took the initiative to consult him on Beijing’s
important historic architecture for which the army would grant special protection during the civil war.
This contrasted sharply with the KMT who had failed to respond to his previous appeals for
architecture conservation. He was also allowed to continue his experiments with a new Bauhaus-
inspired curriculum at the Department of Architecture of Tsinghua University, which he founded in
1946 (Lin, 1996, pp. 101, 105-107). However, under the impact of Soviet experts’ the curriculum
experiments ceased in 1952, and much historic architecture in Beijing began to be demolished in the
same year (J. Wang, 2003). Even, Liang himself came under severe criticism for his architectural ideals,
particularly from 1954 to 1957 ("Jian zhu xue bao 建築學報 (Architectural journal)," 1954).
54
According to (Zhao & Tong, 2003), Liang also invited other friends, for example, TONG Jun (童寯),
a U. Penn. graduate and famous architect since the 1930s, to teach in his newly founded architectural
department of Tsinghua U. in Beijing. Another British-trained architect, CHEN Charles (陈占祥), who
used to be one of the co-partners of Luke in their private firm of Associated Architects (五联), was also
invited by Liang. Chen went to Beijing in 1949 first as a professor at Tsinghua U. He and Liang
together proposed a famous conservation plan for Beijing in 1950, which ignited a fire of severe
criticism afterwards (J. Wang, 2003).

103
 However, Luke’s stay in China lasted less than one year. This was due to a

warning from one of Luke’s friends in Shanghai, XU Guo Mao (徐国懋), the former

manager of the Kincheng Bank (金城银行).55 As a banker, Xu was exposed to the

CCP’s anti-capitalist stance, and more alert to the changing political conditions. 56

Through Xu, Luke foresaw that his career idea of staying in Communist China was

not as bright as Liang promised. At the same time, the vast bureaucratic corruption of

the KMT government prevented Luke from going to Taiwan. 57 Eventually, Luke

decided to re-establish himself in Hong Kong, after having tried to register in Taiwan

and his return to Mainland China. His practice in Hong Kong went through a difficult

time during the first three years with few clients,58 but gradually re-established wide

client relations.59 Among his hundreds of commissions in Hong Kong, some are still

visible today, including New Ritz Apartment (1955), the Chapel for Regional

Seminary of South China (1955), So Uk Estate Blocks P, Q & R (1957)60, Our Lady

of Maryknoll Hospital (1958) & Secondary School (1957), Fair Wind Residence

55
According to the interview with Luk Shing Chark on December 13th, 2006, both Xu and Luke were
members of the Phi Lambda Fraternity (仁社), which was founded in New York in 1919 by nine
Chinese students at Columbia University, and became one of the most important societies of returned
overseas Chinese. Before 1949, Xu also invited Luke to design the Kincheng Bank buildings in
Nanjing, Qingdao, Chongqing, etc.
56
Xu had similar experience as Luke in 1949. According to Xu’s autobiography (1992), he went from
Shanghai to Hong Kong in April 1949, returned to Shanghai in the autumn of 1949 because of
encouragement from his banker friends who stayed in Mainland China. Upon his return, he was
personally welcomed by Premier Zhou Enlai in Beijing. However, he began to experience pressure
during the Movement of Suppression of the Anti-Revolutionaries in 1950. Most likely, he persuaded
Luke to leave Shanghai because of his own experience.
57
See footnote 42 above.
58
Ibid.
59
According to the clients’ list of Luke’s firm since 1952, contributed by the Luke family.
60
The project of So Uk Estate was jointly designed by 5 famous architects’ firms in Hong Kong. For
more on the co-operation see Chapter Four, Section Two, Sub-section Two. Also see Chapter Five,
Section Six for the case study on Luke as well as on the chapels at Regional Seminary of South China
and Wah Yan College.

104
(1958), May May Company Department Store (1959), the Chapel at Wah Yan

College (1960), Repulse Bay Tower and Mansions (1963), etc. (Fig. II-25).61

Luke’s short return to Shanghai in 1950 again demonstrated his idealistic devotion

to “China”. He was willing to try in spite of the possibility of political persecution.

His final decision to stay in Hong Kong, rather than Mainland China or Taiwan,

reveals that political concern was the primary criterion for the orientation of Luke’s

migration, and the CCP power was the dominant force for his leaving China.

4 Summary

The chapter sets out to examine the building dynamics of Chinese architects in the

Republican era. It is suggested that it could be observed in a Republican architectural

nexus, by applying the point of view of the urban network theory. It is further argued

that the nexus was in transformation, because the architects moved dynamically

within it, driven by economic advantages, political shifts, and the threats of wars.

Two distinct collective movements of Chinese architects could thus be identified: a

shift to the Shanghai area from the 1920s, and a retreat to the inland area after 1937.

Then, the chapter narrows its focus from the entire group of Chinese architects to

the migrant architects. The study of the migrant architects shows that the majority

had business connections and movements between China’s modern cities in the

Republican period. This supports the existence of the Republican architectural nexus.

Their movements between Hong Kong and China’s other modern cities substantiate

that Hong Kong used to be one major node of the nexus. Many of them

61
The author thanks Luk Men-Chong for sharing the findings of her research on Luke’s works. Men-
Chong conducted field works to check whether the buildings that recorded in Luke’s office documents
exist or not.

105
106
107
108
also joined the above-mentioned two collective movements. Moreover, their

movements in the late 1940s indicate there was a third major shift to Hong Kong.

Last, the chapter highlights the third major shift of the migrant architects, “the

1949 migration”. Statistical analyses are conducted on the timing of their arrival at

Hong Kong. It is found that, compared with the previous movements, the 1949

migration was on a much wider scale, and was caused by different reasons. While the

Japanese Invasion pushed a few migrant architects to Hong Kong after 1937, the civil

war in the late 1940s, particularly the victory of the CCP in 1949, drove all of them

out around 1949.

Further literature and case studies reveal why the migrant architects chose Hong

Kong as the destination in the 1949 migration. Hong Kong was favored because of its

ease of entry, Cantonese background, existing business connections, and neutral

political stance between the conflicting extremes of Mainland China and Taiwan. The

case studies on individual architects also discover the distinguishing features of the

Chinese migration, by comparing it with that of the non-Chinese. That is, some

migrant architects as well as other Chinese intellectuals shared a sincere devotion to

“China”, which, as I will argue later, was an important impetus for their career

development in Hong Kong after 1949.

109
 Chapter Three: Reform of the Profession

Chapter Three investigates how the arrival of the migrant architects helped to

transform the profession of architecture in Hong Kong.

The chapter begins with a comparison between the profession of architecture

existing in Hong Kong and in Mainland China before 1949 (Section One). The

comparison, serving as a background review may shed light on the aspects of

differences between the two. It appears that the migrant architects would probably

have encountered challenges in these aspects, which were different from what they

were familiar with in pre-1949 Mainland China. And, the architectural profession in

Hong Kong would probably have experienced changes in these aspects because of the

coming of the migrant architects from different backgrounds. Therefore, the chapter

further examines these aspects in post-war conditions (Sections Two to Five), in order

to find the challenges for the migrant architects and the changes of the host profession.

1 A Comparison of the Architectural Profession in Hong Kong and

Mainland China before 1949

On one hand, the architectural profession in Hong Kong had been formed since

the beginning of the British colonization. 1 On the other hand, the profession in

Mainland China had been established by the First Generation of Chinese architects

since the 1920s, from which the migrant architects came.

Three main differences can be found when comparing the architectural profession

in Hong Kong and Mainland China before 1949. First of all, in Hong Kong, the host

1
The first architect to appear in Hong Kong, according to (Lam, 2006), was F. Langer, who came from
Calcutta in 1842 to work for Jardines to plan and supervise the erection of their first large warehouse at
East Point.

110
profession was dominated by Western architects, particularly the British (Lam, 2006),

while in Mainland China, Chinese were in the majority.

When reviewing the history of architectural practice in Hong Kong, Ng points out

that nineteenth century Hong Kong saw “a Western domination” in the architectural

professional field, and the early twentieth century up to the Pre-World War II Era saw

“the rise of Chinese practice”.2 This research deepens and develops Ng’s opinion by

studying the annual list of Hong Kong “Authorized Architects” (AA) from 1903 to

1979 (see Fig.III-1).3 It discovers that before 1924, only two Chinese names appeared

in the list,4 while the rest, more than 100 AA, were non-Chinese. From 1924, new

Chinese names appeared. They were either returned students, 5 or local graduates of

the Civil Engineering Department at HKU. 6 In the late 1930s, with the arrival of

Mainland architects escaping the Japanese Invasion of China, the number of Chinese

AA reached its pre-war peak in 1940, 7 which was twenty-nine (thirty-three percent).

2
See Ng, Kai Chung, “Historic Review of Hong Kong Architectural Practice”, in (Chan & Hong Kong
Institute of Architects., 2006), p.114
3
The time period of 1903-1979 is chosen because in 1903, the registration of Hong Kong A.A. came
into effect, and the first annual list was published; and in 1979, China was reopened to the West as well
as Hong Kong, and the three decades suspension of the building dynamics between Mainland China
and Hong Kong (1949-1979) was over.
4
The two Chinese were “WONG, A Cheong” and “WONG, Kat Son”. They were in the lists of 1903,
1906-1908, but did not appear afterwards. Apart from this, we know nothing about them.
5
For example, WONG Sik Lam(黄锡霖) was added to the list in 1924 (Gov. Gazette No. 68 of 1924).
He originated from Guangdong Province, was educated at Dulwich Preparatory and Dulwich College,
and then University College, London, and practiced in Manchester, Leeds, and Leicester. It seems he
returned in the 1920s, opened practices both in Shanghai (The Southeastern Architectural &
Engineering Company) and Hong Kong (S. L. Wong, Architect, Engineer, & Surveyor), and acted as
one of the foundation member of the Society of Chinese Architects. He is not included as a subject of
this research, for we cannot find his records after the 1940s.
6
The first Chinese in the list of graduates from the Hong Kong University was WONG Tai-cho (黄泰
初) (Gov. Gazette No. 103 of 1928).
7
See Chapter Two, Section Three, Sub-section One for the arrival of Mainland architects in Hong
Kong in the pre-1942 period.

111
However, even in the peak year, the number of Chinese was less than half that of the

non-Chinese, which was fifty-nine (sixty-seven percent). In other words, Western

domination of the Hong Kong profession was maintained at least until the late 1940s.8

In comparison, nineteenth century Mainland China also saw similar Western

domination, particularly, in treaty ports. However, at the end of the 1920s, the

Western powers no longer had a monopoly over the construction market, and had to

share orders with their Chinese colleagues. Delande (1995), studying the profession

in Shanghai during the Republican period, uses the term “the sinicization of the

profession” to describe the changing status of the Shanghai professionals. She finds

that the Chinese had a big advantage, given the temporary withdrawal of the Western

powers due to the First World War, and the rising domestic power supported by the

1927-founded KMT government. This process speeded up with the massive return of

Chinese students, and the establishment of China’s own architectural departments in

the 1930s. According to Delande, the Chinese studios listed in Shanghai’s Dollar

Directory accounted for forty-nine percent (forty-five studios) in 1936, and more than

half of the foreign studios hired Chinese fellow workers. When cross-checking with

the registration records of the Nationalist Shanghai government, a greater number of

Chinese architects in Shanghai can be found, that is, in 1935, there were 299 Chinese

registered.9 If Chinese architects could outnumber the foreign in the top treaty port of

Shanghai where the Western powers were concentrated, the same is very likely to

have happened in other modern Chinese cities. Therefore, it would be safe to

conclude that the Chinese became the majority in the architectural profession in

Mainland China from the 1930s.

8
It was in the year 1949 that the number of Chinese A.A. first exceeded that of the non-Chinese. See
more discussion in the following Section Two, “The Rise of the Chinese”.
9
See (Lai, 2007), p.79

112
 Secondly, the registration of architects in Hong Kong occurred much earlier than

in Mainland China.

As mentioned in Chapter One, Hong Kong passed the Public Health and Building

Ordinance in 1903, under which the term “Authorized Architects” was introduced,

and an annual AA list thus should be prepared. At first, not only architects, but also

engineers and surveyors could be added to the AA list and had the right to supervise

building works. According to Muramatsu (1997) , this is because it was surveyors and

army engineers, rather than professional architects, who took the major responsibility

for building Hong Kong during the early stage of the British colonization. For

example, the PWD, the core department in charge of all aspects of building by the

1980s,10 was originally set up as the Survey General Office in 1846 to deal with the

supervision, design and construction of new government buildings.11 Moreover, it

was the surveyors of the Colony who were first able to form their own society.12

Although from the late nineteenth century, adventurous architects coming from

Britain and around the world were more capable for the duty of AA, the 1903

Ordinance still acknowledged surveyors and engineers as AA. This practice did not

change until 1957. 13 That is to say, in 1949, the building laws in Hong Kong did not

have clear differentiation between architects and other building professionals.

10
By 1982, the PWD was divided into five departments: Building Department, Planning Department,
Land Department, Housing Department, and Architectural Service Department, to apportion its over-
centered roles.
11
See footnote 2 above.
12
As early as the 1920s, the Royal Institution of Charted Surveyors formed their Hong Kong and China
Branch in Hong Kong, while the Engineering Society of Hong Kong was established in 1947, and the
Hong Kong Society of Architects in 1956. For more on the founding of the three organizations, see the
following Sections Three & Four.
13
In 1957, the A.A. list began to contain two parts: architects and engineers. In 1974, the title of
“Authorized Architects” (AA) was changed to “Authorized Persons” (AP). The AP list began to
contain three parts: architects, engineers and surveyors. And, another statutory agent “registered
structural engineer” was introduced. Since then, engineers and surveyors were no longer placed under

113
 Compared with the situation in Hong Kong, the legislation of AA registration had

a harder way to go in Mainland China. 14 The first proposal of AA registration was

raised by Charles Mayne, the chief engineer in the Public Works Department of the

Shanghai Municipal Council in 1906. He suggested that the International Settlement

should follow Hong Kong’s 1903 Ordinance to enact the AA registration. He

reasoned that, by doing so, only qualified architects could practice in the settlement,

and the PWD’s heavy burden of building approval could be relieved. However, for

years, the Legations at Beijing (北京公使团) disapproved of this proposal to prevent

the Shanghai settlement from growing too powerful. The conflicts between the

Western powers in Beijing and Shanghai left the opportunity for the Chinese

government. In 1927, the first regulation of building professional registration in

China was enacted by the Shanghai Special Municipality. Two years later, the KMT

government followed the Shanghai example and enacted the registration nation-wide.

It is worth noting that both registrations did not use “architects”, but “technicians” (技

师) to entitle the registered building professionals. In fact, architects as well as

engineers could apply for the title of “technicians”. It was not until the 1945 Building

Ordinance and the Architects (Administration) Regulations that the registered

“technicians” were re-titled as “architects”. In other words, by 1949, the building

laws in Mainland China did not fully accept the concept of “architects”, nor clearly

identify architects from other building professionals (Wang & Hui, 2004).

Thirdly, the profession in Hong Kong made several efforts to form an association,

but failed, while the profession in Mainland China successfully established its own

professional organization as well as related institutional practices, such as

architectural publication, exhibition, education, etc.

the title of “Architects”. For more on the diversification of these two professions, see the discussion in
Section Three, “Architect vs. Engineer”.
14
See footnote 10 above.

114
 Henry Graye, the founder and editor of The Builder, reported the need to form an

architects’ association and the efforts which had been already made by 1940.15 In the

report, he cites a published letter signed “Architect” to state the reason:

“There were in this Colony innumerable illegal offices…because they are

not established by authorized architects nor are any employed by them, being

run by draughtsmen who have had some experience in the profession. In order

to obtain approval for their plans it was their practice to obtain the services of

some authorized architect who, for a small fee, will sign such plans and submit

them to the Building Authority…this unfair and illegal practice has assumed

such vast proportions as to seriously undermine the prestige and business of

architectural firms fully qualified and duly authorized to practise in this

Colony.”

It is also cited a reply to the letter from J.S. Gibson, an AA who suggested that

“the only way to stop this pernicious practice was to form an architects’

association.”

Graye also records the failure of the efforts to call for an association. The first

effort was by a meeting in the Peninsula Hotel, but the attendance was too small to

form a sufficient quorum. The second was held in Messrs. Lane Crawford’s premises.

The meeting was convened by a government official, and about thirty architects

attended. Although a working committee was selected, it was fruitless due to

unknown reasons. Just before the Japanese Occupation of Hong Kong, the third was

convened at the Metropole Hotel on July 10th, 1940. Because of the threats of wars,

only nine out of the thirty-one architects who had been invited, were able to present.

Again, the meeting felt that it was not sufficiently representative of the profession due

15
Graye, “Inertia…A body at rest tends to remain at rest”, in (Hong Kong and Far East builder), Vol.5,
No.4, p.13.

115
to the small attendance. Two months later, the fourth meeting was cancelled because

of even fewer responses to the invitation.

It should be noted that in the third meeting, only thirty-one architects were invited.

However, there were totally eighty-eight AA registered in 1940 (see Fig.III-1).

Although the main reason for forming an association was declared to protect the

prestige and business of AA, the “small attendance” at all three meetings indicates

that the efforts were only made among a small group of privileged architects or

government officials, rather than supported by all AA. We do not know who these

privileged architects were. The meetings might have excluded the category of “some

authorized architects” who were involved in the illegal practices. But, the exclusivity

line might also lie between Western and Chinese, or architects and engineers, given

the facts that by then, the Hong Kong profession was Western dominated and there

was still no clear identification between architects and engineers.16

Mainland Chinese professionals found it more difficult to establish an architects’

organization because the situation in Mainland China in terms of professional

identification was even more complicated. Robert FAN Wen Zhao (范文照) (Fig.V-

16), the founder and first President of the Society of Chinese Architects (中国建筑师

学会), states the reason for founding the society (1932):

“The significance of architects is not known to the majority of the Chinese

public. Architects are sometimes despised as building contractors, or assumed

to be general engineers together with other misunderstandings. In the summer

of 1922, I returned from the US, where I witnessed the prosperity of the

building industry, and the widely acknowledged status (of architects) among

the public. I always feel angry and worried about the huge gap causing our

16
See Section Three, “Architect vs. Engineer” for the debate on “pure” architects in another effort to
form an association in 1949.

116
 country to lag behind the US, for even the term “architect” is unfamiliar to the

Chinese public. Unless we make great effort with a determined spirit and one

heart, the building industry in China cannot meet international standards.”17

The first Chinese society of architects, The Society of Chinese Architects,

formerly known as the Society of Shanghai Architects (上海建 筑师学会), was

founded in Shanghai in 1927 by Fan and several other returned students.18 One of the

main purposes for founding the society was to identify “Chinese architects” from

many “others”. By then in Mainland China, there were long-established traditional

craft guilds. There were foreigners’ societies, such as the Engineering Society of

China (founded in 1901) and the Shanghai Society of Engineers and Architects

(c1901). There were societies of Chinese engineers, such as the Institute of Chinese

Engineers (中国工程师学会, 1931), which was an amalgamation of two societies, the

Chinese Engineering Society (中国工程学会, founded in 1913) and the Chinese

Society of Engineers (中华工程师学会, founded in 1917). In fact, some Chinese

architects who had returned earlier joined the foreigners’ societies, 19 or those of

Chinese engineers, 20 before the founding of the Society of Chinese Architects. Later,

in 1931, another society, the Shanghai Builders’ Association (上海市建筑协会), was

17
My translation. Fan’s original Chinese text is “建筑师之为世所重，社会人士，多未明了，且有
认为营造包工者流。间或目为一种普通工程师。种种误解，不一而足。下走于民国十一年夏，
自美归国，目睹彼邦建筑事业之发达，社会舆论之融和。若我国则并此建筑师之名称尚未明
了，相形见拙，心常怒焉忧之。因念欲跻我国建筑事业于国际地位，即非蓄志团结，极力振作
不为功。”
18
According to the report in the China Journal of Science and Arts ("Chinese Society of Architects,"
1928.8), the officers of the society, elected in the first annual meeting, were: President Robert Fan (范
文照, graduated from U. Penn.); Vice-President, Y.C. Lu (吕彦直, from Cornell U.); Treasurer, Poy G.
Lee (李锦沛, from Pratt Institute, M.I.T., and Columbia U.); and Secretary, T. Chuang (庄俊, from
U.Ill, and Columbia U.).
19
“Multiplicity of Municipal Regulations Vex Life of Architect in Shanghai”, in China Reconstruction
& Engineering Review, December 1934, pp.92-94, cited in (Delande, 1995)
20
For example, ZHANG Jun (庄俊, T. Chuang), the first returned student from the U.S. (graduated
from U.Ill) and foundation member of the Society, joined the Chinese Society of Engineers in 1920 and
was elected as Board Member.

117
founded by a few young professionals in the building contracting business. In fact, it

was an association of Chinese contractors, modernized from the traditional craft

guilds, and aimed to form a confederation of Shanghai building industry professionals,

including civil engineers, architects and those who interested in architecture (Wang &

Hui, 2004).

With many “others” co-existing with the newly established Society of Chinese

Architects, it would not be surprising that the Chinese public was confused, and even

the Chinese government could not understand the differences. The Ministry of

Education (教育部) did not grant the society a National Charter on account of the

already existing national societies of engineers.21 The Ministry of Industry (实业部)

did not approve the application from the society because “architects” came under the

definition of “technicians” and could only form guilds rather than institutional

organizations. It was not until 1932, five years after its founding, that the society first

obtained formal approval from the Bureau of Education in Shanghai (上海市教育局).

22

Apart from registration, another effort the society made was to enact regulations.

According to LEE Jin Pei (李锦沛, Poy G. Lee), former President of the society “such

architectural societies as the American Institute of Architects and the Royal Institute

of British Architects will serve as a goal which the society will strive to reach.23 In

1928, the society published three documents: Charter of Society of Chinese Architects

(中国建筑师学会章程), Rules of Architects’ Practice (建筑师业务规则), and Joint

Pledge of Society of Chinese Architects (中国建筑师学会公守诚约). The Charter

stated that the purpose of the society was to promote communications among

architects, academic research, mutual business, and connections with other building

21
See (Lee, 1935)
22
See (Lai, 2007), p.79. Also see (Kvan, Liu, & Jia, accepted for publication November 2005)
23
See footnote 21 above.

118
professionals, rendering support to the public authorities in their civic developments

and improvements. The Rules and the Joint Pledge regulated the practice and

charges.24

The society also made efforts to promote architecture in China, including the

publishing of journals, holding of exhibitions, and establishing architectural education.

For example, the society published its own journal Chinese Architect (中国建筑),

aiming to “combine the merits of both Eastern and Western architecture so as to

develop the intrinsic glories of Chinese architecture”.25 From the initial issue of 1932

to the last in 1937 when the publication was discontinued due to the Japanese

Invasion, a total of thirty issues had been published. From Volume Three Issue Two

in 1935, each issue introduced works of one or several society member. For example,

Issue Twenty-six presents the works of the Bank of China Head Office Building

Department by LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受) (Fig.V-28)26 and Channcey Wu Kingkei

（吴景奇）. The architects not only state their attitudes in architecture, but also

choose seven types of work to explain their attitudes in detail.27 When compared with

the contemporary issues of The Builder in Hong Kong, the differences in character

between it and Chinese Architect are clear. The Builder dealt primarily with building
28
news reports, with more attention paid to construction technology. Chinese

Architect was more of an academic forum for Chinese architects to speak up, and it

highlighted their architectural ideas.

24
See footnote 23 above.
25
The aim was advocated by ZHAO Shen (赵深), who was elected as the president in 1932. Zhao’s
original Chinese text is “融合东西建筑学之特长，以发扬吾国建筑物固有之色彩”. See (Zhao, 1932)
26
Luke was the Vice-president of the society in 1935. See Chapter One, Section Three, Sub-section
Four for the case study of Luke.
27
See (Luke & Wu 1936) for their statement. Also see Chapter Five, Section Six for more discussion
on Luke’s architectural belief.
28
The early issues of The Builder were edited by the London engineer Henry Graye. After the sudden
death of Graye in 1954, and several changes of editors and publishers, the style of the journal changed.

119
 The society acted as one of the three host societies to organize China’s first

architectural exhibition, the Exhibition of Chinese Architecture (中国建筑展览会) in

Shanghai in 1936.29 The host societies provided works related to Chinese architecture,

both ancient and modern, including building models, drawings, books, photographs,

materials, construction tools, etc. The exhibition was housed in the new buildings of

the Municipal Museum (上海博物馆) and the Chinese Aviators’ Association (中国航

空协会) at the Great Shanghai Civic Centre. Both buildings, designed by DONG Da

You (董大酉), former President of the society, were good examples demonstrating

Chinese architects’ ideals of nationalism and modernity. 30 The exhibition was so

successful that it attracted over 4,000 spectators each day from cities nation-wide,

such as Beijing, Tianjin, Nanjing, Hangzhou, Suzhou, etc.31

In the field of education the society contributed much to the establishment of

China’ own architectural schools. As mentioned in Chapter One, China’s

architectural schools were all founded by returned Chinese architects. Moreover, it

was members of the society who founded the earliest and the most important ones.

For example, LIU Dun Zhen ( 刘 敦 桢 ) was one of the founders of the first

architectural department at the Suzhou Industrial School (苏州工专建筑科, 1923);

LIU Fu Tai (刘福泰) was the first Head of the department at the Central University

(中央大学建筑工程系, 1927); LIANG Si Cheng was the founder of the departments

at the Northeastern University (东北大学建筑系, 1928) and the Tsinghua University

(清华大学营建系, 1946); WANG Shen (汪申) was the founder of the department at

29
The other two co-organizers were the Shanghai Builders’ Association and the Institute for Research
in Chinese Architecture (中国营造学社)

30
For more on the nationalistic and modernistic architectural ideals, see Introduction, Section Two,
Sub-section One, “The History of Modern Chinese Architecture in the PRC”.
31
See Zai, Zhong Wen, “Jian zhu wen hua yuan di de tuo huang zhe 建筑文化园地的拓荒者 (the
pioneers in the architectural field)”, in (Shanghai jian zhu shi gong zhi bian wei hui. Bian xie ban gong
shi., 1991), p.163

120
the Arts School of Peking University ( 北 平 大 学 艺 术 学 院 建 筑 系 , 1928), and

HUANG Zuo Shen (黄作燊) was the founder of the department at the St. John’s

University in Shanghai ( 上 海 圣 约 翰 大 学 建 筑 系 , 1942), the first department

adopting the Bauhaus system in China. All of the above founders were members of

the society. 32 In fact, most of the above universities had civil engineering

departments before the establishment of architectural departments. In other words,

the founding of the architectural departments by the society members helped to

uphold the independence of the profession of architecture from that of civil

engineering. In comparison, the establishment of architectural education in Hong

Kong occurred much later. The first department, the Department of Architecture at

HKU was founded in 1950,33 and the other department at CUHK in 1991.34

As the society aroused Chinese public interest in architecture, it obtained the

Chinese governments’ acknowledgement. The society acted as the official adviser for

all the important governmental projects, and became the spokesman for the profession

when any lawsuit occurs. It also uttered voice before the governments on the

enactment of architect-related regulations. For example, on the 1945 Architects

(Administration) Regulation, LUKE Him Sau, former President of the society,

together with other members, appealed to the authority to amend some causes

regarding charges, according to the 1928 regulations of the society. Compared with

the regulations of the government, those of the society had higher charges, were in

more detail, and more practicable (Li, 2004).

32
According to the membership in 1950. See (Lai, Wang, Yuan, & Si, 2006).
33
Similar to the practice in Mainland China, HKU had its Department of Civil Engineering in 1911,
earlier than the founding of the Department of Architecture. Many graduates of Civil Engineering had
registered as A.A. since the 1920s.
34
See (Lung, 1997).

121
 It should be noted that fourteen migrant architects (twenty-one percent) were

former members of the society. Some of these were key members who played an

important role in the above-mentioned institutional practices. Their names and

positions in the society35 are listed below:

CHAN Kwok Koon (陈国冠)

CHU Pin (朱彬): Director of the Committee in charge of the society fund and club

(基金及会所委员会主任, 1948）

DJOU Gi-gao (周基高)

FAN Wen Zhao, Robert (范文照): Foundation Member (1927); first President

(1927)

KUO Yuan-hsi (过元熙)

KWAN Sung-sing ( 关 颂 声 ): Standing Council Member; Director of the

Committee in charge of the society fund (1946)

LAM Chi-kan, Edward (蓝志勤)

LAMB Ping-yin (林炳贤)

LEE Young On (李扬安)

LUKE Him-sau (陆谦受): Vice-President (1935); Council Director (1946, 1948）

PANG Dick-noe (彭涤奴)

SU Gin-Djih (徐敬直): Council Member (1948）

WOO Shao-Ling, John (吴绍璘)

YUEN Tat-Cho (阮达祖)

The three main differences between the architectural profession in Mainland

China and in Hong Kong before 1949 would make clear the challenges the migrant

architects may have experienced when encountering the host profession in Hong

Kong. The first challenge would be that of Western domination of the profession.

The migrant architects came from the Mainland Chinese “sinicized” profession with

35
According to (Lai et al., 2006).

122
its majority of Chinese. Did they experience difficulty when encountering the host

profession, which was dominated by Western architects, and influenced by a strong

colonial background? 36 The second challenge would be the differentiation of

architects from other building professionals. It seems that the host profession had the

advantage of an earlier enacted AA registration, while the profession in Mainland

China had the disadvantage of more “others” in the field. However, the migrant

architects had developed a rich experience of architectural professionalization

throughout their efforts in Mainland China. Did their Mainland experience made them

more capable to deal with the similar challenge of professional identification in Hong

Kong? The third would be the formation of professional organizations. The

profession in Hong Kong failed to form an association, while the profession in

Mainland China had already successfully established their own society and carried out

many important institutional practices. Again, did their former institutional practices

enable them help to form an architects’ association in Hong Kong?

The following sections aim to answer the above questions. It is hypothesized that

the migrant architects’ response to the three challenges may have led to the changes of

the host profession in three aspects, that is, the sinicization of the profession, the

differentiation between architects and engineers, and the establishment of a

professional organization.

36
When answering my question in the letter of September 8th, 2004 “What did Hong Kong mean to
Robert FAN Wen Zhao (范文照) in his era? A ruined city after war or a venture capital full of free
spirit?”, FAN Zheng (范政), Robert FAN Wen Zhao’s son, one of the migrant architects himself, wrote
in the letter of October 1st, 2004 that “My father had been saying time after time that Hong Kong was
Too much of a colony and with colonial influence even in architecture.”

123
 2 The Rise of the Chinese

One change in the host profession that was caused by the coming of the migrant

architects was the sinicization of the profession, that is, the rise of the Chinese. Such

a trend could be observed in three aspects: the Authorized Architects (AA)

registration, the publication of the journal The Builder, and key members of the Hong

Kong Society of Architects. All three aspects see Chinese breaking through previous

Western domination. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between the rise of

the Chinese and the coming of the migrant architects.

In terms of the AA registration, as mentioned in the background review in the last

section, before the war, although the number of Chinese AA increased after 1924, it

never outnumbered that of non-Chinese. Even at its peak year of 1940, the number of

non-Chinese was still twice that of Chinese. A further study of the annual list in the

post-war period finds that the real rise occurred in 1949 (see Fig.III-1-a,b). That year,

the number of Chinese AA was forty-six persons, or fifty-two percent, surpassing for

the first time that of the non-Chinese, which was forty-three persons. During the

period studied, 1949 to 1979, it grew quickly. In 1956, it reached seventy-seven

persons, or seventy percent and soared to another record level of eighty percent from

the early 1970s.

Why was there such a rapid and continuous growth? It is true that the

establishment of the first architectural department at HKU in 1950 was an important

reason. The department produced its first graduates in 1955, and has educated over

thousand graduates up till now. 37 The local educated post-war generations definitely

made up the bulk of Hong Kong AA. However, it should be noted that it was in 1958,

37
According to Patrick Lau (1997), former Department Head, the department had a total of 1,019
architectural graduates by 1996.

124
three years after their graduation, that a batch of the first graduates registered as AA 38

This occurred because a period of extra practice experience was required in addition

to the five-year course leading to the degree of Bachelor of Architecture at HKU

before they could apply for AA registration.39 Before 1958, another force can also

taken into account for the rise of the Chinese. A detailed comparison between the

number of Chinese AA and the migrant architects (Fig.III-1-c) shows that they largely

overlap with each other by around 1955, when Chinese had already become the

majority (around seventy percent) of Hong Kong AA. In other words the coming of

the migrant architects was the initial impetus for the rise of Chinese AA in the post-

war era.

When publications are examined, the reports on new buildings and their architects

in the aforementioned local professional journal The Builder can be used as important

references. Before the War, most reports were of non-Chinese architects. According

to my study, from 1938 (Volume Three, Issue Four) to 1941 (Volume Six, Issue Four),

fifty-one, or eighty-five percent of reports were of new buildings designed by non-

Chinese architects or firms such as P&T and Leigh & Orange, while nine reports

involved six Chinese architects or firms such as Chau & Lee.40 After the war, the

journal published more and more works by Chinese. From 1948 (Volume Seven,

Issue Two) to 1972 (Issue Seven), it reported the works of sixty-three Chinese

architects or firms, of which thirty were the migrant architects.41 The journal testified

to the growing influence of Chinese architects, including the migrant architects.

38
The first batch included CHAN Hong Fat（陈匡法）, KHO Kiem An（许金安）, NG Yook-
Man( 吴煜民）, Jackson WONG Chak Sang(王泽生）.
39
There were serious debates on how long this extra period should be for the architectural graduates at
HKU, in the academy, the government, and the public. For more discussion see Section Three,
“Architect or Engineer”.
40
Apart from Chau & Lee, the others were CHAN Wing-gee (陈荣枝, W.C. Chan?), IU Tak-lam(姚德
霖), MOK York-chan(莫若灿), PUN In-tat(潘贤达), SIU Ho-ming(萧浩明). Four were among the
migrant architects.
41
See the published works of the migrant architects in Appendix.

125
 The Hong Kong Society of Architects (HKSA, currently known as HKIA) was

founded in 1956. As the first architects’ association in Hong Kong, its founding

process will be studied later. 42 Here, the focus is the composition of its membership

in terms of the ethnic groups of Chinese and non-Chinese. As mentioned in the

background review in the last section, before the war, a small group of privileged

architects and governmental officials, most possibly non-Chinese, made several

attempts to form an association but failed. When the society was finally established in

1956, it had a total of twenty-seven foundation members. Seventeen of them were

non-Chinese, while ten were Chinese, of whom nine were the migrant architects43

(Table III-1 & Fig.III-2). Although the Chinese foundation members were not in the

majority, one of the migrant architects, SU Gin Djin (徐敬直), was elected as the first

President. 44 From 1956 to 1979, a total of eighteen architects were elected as

Presidents. Half were non-Chinese and the other half Chinese, of whom five were the

migrant architects (Table III-2 & Fig.III-3). Their names and inauguration years are

listed below:

1956-57: SU Gin Djih (徐敬直)

1960: SZETO Wai (司徒惠)

1964: LEE Wei Kwong, Edward (李为光)

1966: KWOK Tun Li, Stanley (郭敦礼)

1970: OUYANG Chao, Leslie (欧阳照)

Obviously, Chinese architects becoming the foundation members and Presidents

of the HKSA is important evidence of the rise of the Chinese. The migrant architects

being the majority of these key Chinese members again proves that the rise of the

Chinese was directly caused by the coming of the migrant architects. It should also be

42
Section Four of this chapter studies how the society formed, and particularly the efforts made by the
migrant architects.
43
For the names and basic background of the nine migrant architects, see Table III-6.
44
For Su’s efforts to form the society, see Section Four.

126
 Fig.III-1 The Rise of the Chinese after 1949
Source: Annual List of A.A.; Data of the Migrant Architects (Appendix)

500

450

400

350
No.of Architects

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
03
06
09
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
72
75
78
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Year

No.of Chinese A.A. No.of non-Chinese A.A. No. of A.A. No.of migrant architects

a. The HK A.A

140
and
120 the Migrant Architects,
No.of Architects

100 1903-1979
80

60

40

20

0
b. The Chinese A.A
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960

and
Year
the Non-Chinese A.A,
No.of Chinese A.A. No.of non-Chinese A.A.
1942-1960

140

120
No.of Architects

100

80

60

40

20

0 c. The Chinese A.A

1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960

and
Year
the Migrant Architects,
No.of Chinese A.A. No.of migrant architects
1942-1960

127
 Chinese non-
18
Chinese
local the migrant
16

No.of Foundation Members

architects
14 No. of 1 9 17
12 Persons
10 % 4% 33% 63%
8 17 Total 27
6 9
4
2
0 1
Chinese non-Chinese Fig.III-2 & TableIII-1 Foundation Members of
the HKSA, 1956
local the migrant architects
Source: HKIA Archive

Chinese non-
10 Chinese
9
local the migrant
8
architects
No.of 4 5 9
No.of Presidents

7
5 persons
6
% 22% 28% 50%
5
9 Total 18
4
3
2 4
1
Fig.III-3 & Table III-2 Presidents of the HKSA
0
Chinese non-Chinese (HKIA), 1956-1979

local the migrant architects

Source: (Chan & Hong Kong Institute of
Architects., 2006, pp.32-52)

128
noted that one of the local Chinese Presidents, the 1979-1980 President HSU Wo The,

William (徐和德), is the son of the first President SU Gin Djih (徐敬直). Lacking the

data of his pre-1949 Mainland experience, 45 William HSU is neither selected as a

migrant architect nor counted as a migrant President of the HKIA. However, it can be

seen from his case that the migrant architects not only acted as the initial force for the

rise of Chinese in the immediate post-war years, but also had a continuous influence

in the Hong Kong profession through their second generation.46

3 Architect vs. Engineer

Architects and engineers became two distinct and complimentary professionals in

the construction field in the modern era. The making of the modern architect and

engineer experienced an evolving debate between each other, not only in their original

birth place, the Europe of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,47 but also in other

places such as Republican China 48 as well as post-war Hong Kong. The two

professions made efforts to distinguish each from the other, and struggled for equality.

This section sets out to study the architect-engineer debate in post-war Hong Kong,

and then to examine how the migrant architects faced a challenge of professional

identification similar to that they had experienced in Mainland China.

45
Up to the present, the facts we found about William Hsu are that he had the same educational
background as his father, graduated from Department of Architecture at U. of Michigan, returned to
Hong Kong at around 1966, and worked in his father’s firm Hsin Yieh Architects (兴业建筑师事务所).
He is now living in Canada.
46
Other father-and-son partners among the migrant architects include Robert FAN Wen Zhao（范文
照）and his son Robert FAN Zheng（范政）, and IU Tak-lam（姚德霖）and his son IU Po Chiu (姚
保照). For more on Fan see the case study in Chapter Five, Section Four.
47
Pfammatter (2000) argues that the origins of modern architectural education are the engineering-
based Ecole Polytechnique in Paris in 1795, and the later formation of the more relaxed Ecole Centrale
des Arts et Manufactures in 1829. His study provides a background to the debate between the modern
architect and engineer in Europe in terms of their educational origins.
48
Section One of this chapter reviews the identification of Chinese architects from other building
professionals in Republican China. Also see (Delande, 1995)

129
 There was a growing architect-engineer debate in post-war Hong Kong,

particularly during the 1950s. It first took place in academic circle, then attracted

public interest, and finally led to the amendment of governmental regulations on AA

registration. As mentioned in the background review in the last section, both

architects and engineers could register as Hong Kong “Authorized Architects” (AA)

under the 1903 Building Ordinance. This practice did not encounter much challenge

until the establishment of the Colony’s first architectural department at HKU.

According to the regulations of AA registration at that time, the new architectural

graduates needed three years extra practical experience after the five-year course in

Architecture, a total of eight years before he (or she) was eligible to apply for AA. In

1954, Professor Gordon Brown, 49 the founder and Head of the new School of

Architecture at HKU, appealed to the Authorized Architects Consulting Committee

(AACC) 50 to reduce the three-year practical experience to one year, which is the

requirement for the Associate Members of the Royal Institute of British Architects

(RIBA). However, Sven Erik Faber, the second President of the Engineering Society

of Hong Kong,51 disagreed with Brown’s proposal and argued it would be unfair that

HKU engineering graduates should have four years practical experience before

registering as AA, if HKU architectural graduates needed only one year. Under the

pressure from both sides,52 the AACC made a compromise decision. Architectural

graduates after a five-year course, required practical experience of two years or one

year if the degree was to be recognized by the RIBA. Engineering graduates, after a

49
Before the appointment as the Head at HKU in 1950, Professor Gordon Brown used to be the
Principal of the A.A. School in London, and the first Professor and Chair of Architecture at Edinburgh
University.
50
The committee was responsible for advising the Executive Council whether any applicant should be
included on the annual list of A.A.
51
The Engineering Society of Hong Kong was founded in 1947, and known as the Hong Kong Institute
of Engineers since 1975.
52
Archives in the HK Public Record Office show there were many reports, letters, comments, and
proposals regarding the university architecture-engineering debate. See file no. HKRS 41-1-8100

130
four-year course, required three years practical experience if recognized by the

Institution of Civil Engineers.

Apparently, Hong Kong engineers were not satisfied with this compromise. They

expanded the debate from the university to the public. On November 29th, 1955, the

local newspaper South China Morning Post published a letter by John Cecil Faber.53

He again questioned the two years less practical experience required by HKU

architectural graduates than by engineering graduates. On the next day, Brown’s reply

was published, pointing out that both graduates in architecture and engineering

actually had the same period of training, that is a total of seven years, because the

architectural graduates had a five-year course, one-year more than those in

engineering, and their current practical experience was two years, one-year less than

those engineering.54 Apart from the experience period, Brown brought up the question

in the debate, whether engineers could be called as “architects”, “if they had received

no training in regard to many aspects of the architects’ work”.55 On the third day,

there was Faber’s response, clarifying the difference between the “architects” and

“Authorized Architects”. He argued that Hong Kong engineers had no choice but to

register as “Authorized Architects”, because only AA could submit plans and erect

buildings in the Colony.

The shift of debate focus from the experience period required for university

graduates to the meaning of “architects”, “engineers” and “Authorized Architects”

created intense public interest. Apart from Brown and Faber, eight persons

commented on the topic of “Architects and Engineers” in the newspaper in the

53
J C Faber was later elected as the President in 1961/1962.
54
In fact, early HKU architectural graduates had two years of practical experience, rather than one year,
because it was not until 1961 that the degree of HKU Bachelor of Architecture was recognized by the
R.I.B.A. (Hui, 2000)
55
Letter by R.G. Brown, in South China Morning Post, November 30th, 1955

131
following days. 56 Some agreed that “architects” and “engineers” should have

different positions in the building industry. 57 Some did not care about titles and

understood that the title of “Authorized Architects” in the Ordinance was laid down

purely for convenience. 58 However, more believed that “engineers” had more

experience and took more important responsibility for building safety.59 One even

suggested that the title of “Authorized Architects” should be changed to “Authorized

Engineers”.60 Among those who were for “engineers” was the migrant architect LI

Sheung Ngai (李尚毅), who himself was an HKU engineering graduate in 1941.61 He

mentioned that the three key factors of architecture, aesthetics, structural stability, and

economy, should be achieved by the close co-ordination of the two professions, and

suggested that both HKU architectural and engineering graduates should have the

same practical period of three years. It seems that “engineers” had more public

support in Hong Kong at that time. The architect-engineer debate reveals, as I

understand, a growing new status of architects on one hand, and an existing strong

status of engineers on the other.

The debate was also one of the main influences leading to the amendments of

governmental regulations on AA registration. From 1957, two separate lists were

prepared under the title of “Authorized Architects”, one for architects and the other

engineers. In 1974, the “Authorized Architects” (AA) was further re-titled

“Authorized Persons” (AP), with architects included in list I, engineers in list II and

surveyors in list III. Thereafter, engineers have no longer been put under the title of

“architects”. At the same time, since reinforced concrete high-rise buildings became

56
("South China morning post,"), December 1st -6th, 1955.
57
Letters by Ron Lee and J Huang, ibid.
58
Letters by K.B. Cheng and C.P. Chow, ibid.
59
Letters by Cheung Cam Tin, S.N. Li, and Arthur Li, ibid.
60
Letter by Cheung Cam Tin, ibid.
61
Letter by S. N. Li, ibid. After graduation, Li escaped the Japanese Occupation of Hong Kong and
went to Mainland China to practice. For more on his chronology see Appendix.

132
the norm, another statutory agent, “registered structural engineer” (RSE), was

introduced to act as consultants to AP regarding the structural aspects of building

works. The AP and RSE statistics in 1991 (Fig.III-4) aids understanding of the

structure and composition of the amended registration system. It is obvious that the

central responsibility lies with architects. Moreover, the subdivision from AP

engineers to RSE emphasizes the different roles that engineers take, and indicates

their clear identification from architects. The clear professional identification in

legislation took more than three decades to achieve and, the delay caused more

challenges to professionals in both architecture and engineering, as proven by the

study in the next two sections.

How did the migrant architects face the challenge of professional identification in

Hong Kong? Did they identify themselves with the growing new status of architects,

or the existing strong status of engineers, given the fact that a strong engineering

background is one aspect of the collective characteristics of the migrant architects, as

mentioned in Chapter One and sensed in the case of LI Sheung Ngai (李尚毅)? How

did they respond to the amendment of the AA registration in 1957? This research

finds that the 1957 amendment may have been a turning point in their self-

identification. Previously, most migrant architects had already been qualified as AA.

From then on, they should have been subdivided into either the list of architects or

that of engineers. Only few could hold both titles. Fig.III-5 (Table III-3) shows that,

after 1957, thirty-nine migrant architects (fifty-eight percent) were subdivided into the

list of architects, twenty-one persons (thirty-one percent) into the list of engineers, and

another two persons (three percent) once held both titles. The chart also compares the

statistics after 1957 with that of their educational background. Originally, twenty-

three migrant architects (thirty-four percent) trained in architecture; thirty-three

persons (forty-nine percent) in engineering; and another six persons (nine percent) in

both. The comparison reveals that their self-identification after 1957 was largely

133
influenced by their educational background. All those titled as engineers (twenty-one

persons) originally had received engineering education. All those who originally

received architectural education (twenty-three persons) chose the title of architects.

However, an obvious shift to the architects’ category can be found. In fact, some

migrant architects who were not purely educated in architecture chose to be architects,

rather than engineers. This included twelve with engineering backgrounds, and three

informally-educated draftsmen. It is worth noting that among those who had both

qualifications of architecture and engineering, four chose the title of architect, while

one chose the title of engineer. In other words, among the migrant architects, there

was an increasing recognition of being architects.

By choosing the title of either architect or engineer in the AA registration, every

migrant architect gave his (or her) individual answer when facing the challenge of

professional identification. So how did they contribute to Hong Kong’s architectural

professional identification as a whole? Did those with the title of architect make

efforts different from those with the title of engineers? These questions will be studied

in the next two sections.

134
 AP List II: AP List I: AP List III:
Engineers Architects Surveyors

16 0 668 0 42

176

RES

Fig.III-4 AP and RSE Statistics, 1991

Source: {Hong Kong. Buildings Ordinance Office., 1991, p.35}

45

40 39

35 33

30
No.of Persons

25 23
21
20

15

10
6
5 2

0
Educational Background HK A.A. after 1957

Architects Engineers Both

Educational Background HK A.A. after 1957

Architects 23 (34%) 39 (58%)
Engineers 33 (49%) 21 (31%)
Both 6 (9%) 2 (3%)
Others 5 (7%) 5 (7%)
Total 67 (100%) 67 (100%)

Fig.III-5 & Table III-3 Architect or Engineer: Professional Identification of the Migrant Architects
Source: Annual List of A.A., Data of the Migrant Architects (Appendices I)

135
 4 Founding of the HKSA

The contributions that the migrant architects made to Hong Kong’s professional

identification as a whole were manifest during the founding of the Hong Kong

Society of Architects (HKSA). As mentioned in the background review in the last

section, The Builder reported several efforts to form an architects’ association before

the war in order to stop some illegal practices by non-authorized architects in the

Colony. However, the efforts were abortive due to the threat of the war as well as a

lack of a wide support among architects. From the end of the 1940s, The Builder

resumed its reports on the architects’ association, for a somehow different aim, which

drew attention from a wider circle of architects.

In 1949, it was reported that another attempt to form an architects’ association was

called by a local Chinese architect, FOK Nai-hang (霍乃铿).62 Although The Builder

did not specify why such an attempt was made, the reason could be deduced from

related reports on other building professional societies in Hong Kong. For example,

in 1948, there was a report of the establishment of the Engineering Society of Hong

Kong (known as the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers since 1975). It was not only

a society of civil engineers restricted to the building industry, but called for inclusion

and co-operation between engineers of all kinds. As the President S. E. Faber said
63
cited in the report:

“We are particularly fortunate in having such a wide range of Engineers

among our members. Since the formation of the Institution of Civil Engineers

in London over a hundred years ago (the first non-military association of

Engineers) there have been many branches formed as the knowledge of a

science spread, and there has been a tendency for such branches to be

independent of each other, perhaps almost competitive. This Society is an

62
“An architectural association for Hong Kong”, in The Builder, Vol.7, No.6, p.21
63
“Engineering Society of Hong Kong”, in ibid, Vol.7, No.2, pp.27-28

136
 attempt to fuse together all such types in the belief that a strong alloy may thus

come into being.”

The Engineering Society did succeed in forming a wide and strong alloy, for even six

migrant architects were elected as members in its first annual meeting.64

In addition to the Engineering Society, there was also in the Colony the Hong

Kong and China Branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. As reported

in The Builder in 1950, 65 since its establishment in the 1920s, the Hong Kong

Surveyors’ Institution had grown in strength, with most of its members being active in

the Public Service; the Crown Lands and Surveys; Architectural Office; Building

Ordinance Office and the Valuation and Resumption Office of PWD and in the Rating

and Valuation Department. A few of its members were also famous architects. For

example, one of the chief partners of P&T, George Leopold Wilson in charge of the

firm offices in both Hong Kong and Shanghai from the 1920s to the 1950s, was

former Chairmen of the Institution.66

Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that the calling for an architects’

association in 1949 was a response to growing competition from other building

professionals’ societies of engineers and surveyors. Unlike the pre-war efforts which

were restricted to a small group of privileged architects or governmental officials, the

1949 attempt was open to all the eighty-nine Authorized Architects of that year.

64
The six migrant architects were CHANG Harding Ding(张孝庭), CHEUNG Kit Lam(张杰霖), LI
Sheung Ngai(李尚毅), WONG Faitfone(黄培芬), WONG Ting-Tsai（王定斋）, and YUAN Mrs.
Ying-hsi (袁成莹犀). Apart from Wong Faitfone who had architectural qualification, the others were
originally trained in engineering.
65
“The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors”, in The Builder, Vol.8, No.3, p,15. However, its
report of the founding year of the Institution was 1926, which is contradicted in another earlier report
which states 1929, “The Hong Kong & China Branch of the Chartered Surveyors’ Institution” Vol.6,
No.1, p, 29.
66
For Wilson’s biography see The Builder, Vol.9, No.4, p,13. Also see (Purvis, 1985)

137
thirty-one names who attended the 1949 discussion were published in the report:67

Eleven were non-Chinese, while twenty were Chinese, including thirteen migrant

architects. Apparently, it was the Chinese architects, both local and migrant, who

responded more actively to the attempt by the local architect FOK Nai-hang. G L

Wilson, the chief partner of P&T, though not present, expressed in a letter his great

interest in the proposed association. He also stressed the importance of incorporating

a code of ethics in the constitution of the association to be formed whether it were for

architects only or on some broader basis of membership. Wilson’s letter was read at

the beginning of the meeting and set the tone of the whole discussion. Arguments

arose regarding whether the proposed association should be only for those “pure”

architects with architectural qualification or whether it should be for all “Authorized

Architects” in the Colony, of whom many had only engineering qualifications. It was

also reported that SU Gin Djih（徐敬直）, a migrant architect and the 1948 Council

Member of the Society of Chinese Architects in Mainland China pointed out in a clear

and forceful way that this meeting had it in its power either to get an association of

some kind started or to allow the present attempt to fade out as had happened

previously. Apart from the election of a provisional committee with Bertram William

Harold Bousted as Convener, and SU Gin Djih as Treasurer, nothing further came of

this effort.

It seems that the internal division between privileged “pure” architects and

engineering-based AA, was stronger than the external competition from other

professional bodies, preventing the creation of the architects’ association, and leading

to the failure of the 1949 attempt. The internal barrier had to wait for another period

of time to be overcome. As mentioned in previous subsections, the early 1950s saw

the rise of the Chinese AA and a growing architect-engineer debate. For example, in

1956, Chinese became the majority of AA (seventy-seven persons, seventy percent),

67
See footnote 62 above.

138
of whom fifty-four persons, or fifty percent, were migrant architects. Also, at the end

of 1955, the architect-engineer debate expanded from the university to the public. In

other words, both the internal and external situations changed in the mid-1950s. On

one hand, the coming of the migrant architects changed the internal composition of

Hong Kong AA (Fig.III-6, Table III-4). On the other hand, the external competition

became more serious in parallel to the growing architect-engineer debates.

In this context, a meeting suggested by SU Gin Djih in June 1956 led to the

successful founding of the HKSA in September.68 I argue that apart from the changed

context, the 1956 success owed much to the efforts by the migrant architects,

particularly SU Gin Djih. Educated in the US, and having practiced in Shanghai, a

more cosmopolitan society than Hong Kong before the war, Su was not deterred by

the language barrier and the separation between the local Chinese and the Western

communities in Hong Kong, 69 and invited a wider range of architects to the 1956

meetings compared with the 1949 attempt by Fok N H.70 This could be verified by

statistical analyses of the composition of the members present in 1956 and in 1949. It

should be noted that the analysis in 1956 does not use the statistics at the meeting of

June, because The Builder only published a group photo of the forty members

attending, but did not provide their names (Fig.III-7). Although the meeting of

September had a smaller attendance, the names of those present were recorded as the

foundation members of the society, and thus could be studied.

A comparison between the statistics of the 1949 attempt and the 1956 September

meeting (Fig.III-8; Table III-5) shows, first of all, that Su invited more non-Chinese

68
The Builder, Vol.12, No.1, p.23; Vol.12, No.2, p.30.
69
Shanghai spinners, who migrated to Hong Kong in around 1949, also took the lead in breaking the
long separation between the local Chinese and the Western communities by approaching British banks
for loans for their enterprises. For more see the background review in Chapter Four, Section One.
70
In comparison, Fok N H was educated and practiced in Hong Kong. He was a graduate from the
Civil Engineering Department at HKU.

139
architects and more governmental officials. Of the seventeen non-Chinese (or sixty-

three percent) Su invited, eight were Authorized Architects, and nine were

governmental officials in PWD, 71 while the Eleven non-Chinese architects (or thirty-

five percent) Fok invited were all Authorized Architects. Secondly, local Chinese

architects were less involved in 1956 than in 1949. Only one local Chinese was

among the foundation members, while seven attended in the 1949 attempt. Thirdly,

although the migrant architects were still a minority in 1956 (Fig.III-8-b), it is

undeniable that they were an important influence in founding the HKSA. Su, for his

great efforts in both the 1949 and 1956 meetings, was elected as the First President of

the society. Two other migrant architects, Stanley KWOK Tun-Li（郭敦礼）and

WONG Faitfone (黄培芬), were elected as Members of the first Council (Fig.III-9).

A total of nine migrant architects were elected Foundation Members.

The strong architectural background of the nine Foundation Members should be

emphasized. As shown in Table III-6, one was trained in both architecture and

engineering, seven in architecture. Only one was an informally-educated draftsman.72

Moreover, in the 1957 AA registration when two separate lists, one for “architects”

and the other “engineers” were prepared under the same title of AA, all of them were

subdivided into the list of “architects”. Su’s background as a “pure” architect should

be further highlighted. He first obtained the degree of Bachelor of Science in

Architecture at the University of Michigan in 1929. He also held the George G. Booth

Scholarship in Architecture at Cranbrook Academy of Art. Before returning to China

in 1932, he practiced under Eliel Saarinen, involved in the design of Kingswood

School, Cranbrook. In Mainland China, he was one of the founding partners of the

71
HKIA Archive.
72
The informally-educated draftsman was William LING Wei-li (林威理), who received personal
tuition from Eric Cumine in “Cumine & Co.” developed from being an assistant (1930, Shanghai), to
chief assistant (1949, Hong Kong), and to partnership in the firm (1966, Hong Kong).

140
firm, Hsin Yieh Architects & Associates (兴业建筑师事务所). He joined the Society

of Chinese Architects in 1933 and was elected as a Council Member in 1948.73

Chinese non-
50 local migrant Chinese
45 architects
40 No.of 22 24 43
35
persons
24
% 25% 27% 48%
No.of A.A.

30
25
Total 89
43
20
15
10 22

5
0
Chinese A.A. non-Chinese A.A.
a A.A. in 1949
Local migrant architects

Chinese non-
90 local migrant Chinese
80 architects
No.of 23 54 32
70
persons
60 % 21% 50% 29%
No.of A.A.

50 54 Total 109
40
30

20
32
10 23

0
Chinese A.A. non-Chinese A.A.

Local migrant architects b A.A. in 1956

Fig.III-6 & Table III-4 AA Membership Composition in 1949 vs. in 1956

Source: A.A. Annual list

73
Su’s practice in Hong Kong and his architectural ideal will be studied in Chapter Five, Section Two.

141
Fig.III-7 Members Present in the 1956 Meeting (First row seated, sixth from the left: SU Gin-Djin)
(The Builder, Vol.12, No.1)

Chinese non-
25 Chinese
local migrant A.A.
20
architects
No.of 7 13 11
No.of Persons

persons
15
13 % 23% 42% 35%
Total 31
10

5 11
7

0
Chinese non-Chinese a Members Present in the 1949 attempt
local the migrant architects A.A. by Fok N H
Source: (The Builder, Vol.7, No.6, p.21)
Chinese non-Chinese
18 local migrant PWD A.A.
16 architects Officials
No.of Foundation Members

14
No.of 1 9 9 8
9 Persons
12
% 4% 33% 33% 30%
10
Total 27
8
6 9
4 8
2
0 1
Chinese non-Chinese
b Foundation Members of the HKSA, 1956
local the migrant architects
A.A. PWD Officials Source: HKIA Archive

Fig.III-8 & Table III-5 Society Membership Composition in 1949 vs. in 1956

142
 Fig.III-9 The First Council of HKSA, 1956 (The Builder, Vol.12, No.2)
First row, left to right: First: WONG Faitfone; Second: SU Gin-Djin; Fourth: KWOK Tun-Li

CHEANG Koon Hing (郑观宣) M.Arch.(Harvard)

DJOU Gi Gao (周基高) M.S.C.A.
KWOK, Stanley Tun-Li (郭敦礼) B.Arch.(Shanghai), A.A.Dip., A.R.I.B.A.
KWONG, Pak Chu（邝百铸） B.Arch.(Canton), M.Arch.(Texas)
LING William Wei-li (林威理) ---
LUKE, Him Sau (陆谦受) A.R.I.B.A., A.A. Dip.
SU Gin Djin (徐敬直) B.Sc.(Arch.)(Michigan)
WONG Faitfone (黄培芬) B.Sc.(Arch.)(Manila), A.I.A.A. & S.
B.Arch.(Liverpool),
YUEN Tat-cho (阮达祖) B.Sc.(Eng.)(Hong Kong), M.I.R.A.

Table III-6 Migrant Architects as Foundation Members of the HKSA, 1956

Source: HKIA Archive, A.A. Annual List

143
 Like SU Gin Djih, Stanley KWOK Tun-Li (Fig. II-10) can

also be regarded as a “pure” architect. He first graduated with

the degree of Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the St.

John’s University in Shanghai in 1949, and then with a

Diploma from the AA School of Architecture in London in

1955. He was elected one of the first Council Members of the

HKSA in 1956 and the President in 1966. According to Fig.III-10 KWOK Tun-Li
(郭敦礼, 1927- )
Kwok, 74 to identify “architects” from “engineers” was the
(Chan & HKIA, 2006)
main purpose of forming the HKSA in 1956, because

members of both professions could be registered as AA. He suggested at the first

Council meeting of the society, to appeal to the government to use the title of

“Authorized Persons” (AP), instead of “Authorized Architects” (AA), in

registration.75 For him, a clear differentiation in legislation would eventually resolve

the conflict between architects and other building professionals. Kwok’s suggestion

was partly accepted by the government in 1957 when two separate lists began to be

prepared under the title of AA, one for architects and the other engineers. It was not

until 1974 that Kwok’s suggestion was fully accepted to replace the title of AA with

AP.

The above study sheds light on the reason why the 1956 efforts to establish an

association succeeded. In 1956, the migrant architects were the majority of the

Chinese AA as well as in the entire category of AA. A group of the migrant architects

such as Su and Kwok, who had a strong architectural background and could be

considered as “pure” architects, took a similar stance towards professional

identification, and reached out to a wider circle of non-Chinese professionals, both

74
Kwok Tun-Li is currently living in Canada. The author was given an opportunity to conduct a face-
to-face interview with him at Harbour Plaza, Kowloon on May 14th, 2007, when he visited Hong Kong.
75
According to a telephone interview with Kwok on December 14th, 2007

144
architects and officials. In other words, the HKSA was founded on a collaborative

base between the non-Chinese as well as the Chinese “pure” architects, particularly

those migrant architects with an architectural background.

5 Efforts towards Multidiscipliniarity

Although founded by a group of “pure” architects, the HKSA from its inception

was open to all who practiced or studied architecture in the Colony. Those AA with

only engineering qualification were able to be elected as members, at least until 1974

when “Authorized Architects” was re-titled “Authorized Persons”, and engineers were

no longer placed under the title of “architects”. In other words, the delay of

professional identification in legislation resulted in tension remaining inside the

society between “pure” architects and engineering-based AA. However, efforts made

by Society members to tackle this tension, as I argue, helped to develop

multidiscipliniarity, and those migrant architects with engineering background

contributed greatly to this development.

In fact, two migrant architects

with engineering background became

the President of the HKSA, one is

SZETO Wai ( 司 徒 惠 ) in 1960

(Fig.II-11), and the other Leslie

OUYANG Chao (欧阳昭) in 1970.

Both had strong engineering

backgrounds. Szeto graduated with

Fig.III-11 SZETO Wai (司徒惠, 1913-1991)
the degree of Bachelor of Science in (The Builder, Vol.14 No.5)

Engineering from the St. John’s University in Shanghai in the late 1930s, and then

went to practice in the U.K. as an Assistant Civil Engineer. In 1945, he returned to

China, and worked as Senior Planning Engineer of the National Hydroelectric

145
Engineering Bureau of the National Resources Commission, designing the Wong

Kiang (滃江) dam in north Guangdong Province (Fig.IV-29). After arriving in Hong

Kong in 1948, he first opened an engineering office, 76 and later started his own

architectural practice, Szeto Wai and Associates. Apart from being the President of

the HKSA in 1960, he was also elected as one of the First Committee Members of the

Institution of Structural Engineers (Hong Kong Section) in 1963. The engineering

related titles Szeto held included CENG, FICE, FISTRUCTURE, FASCE, MIMechE,

FIPHE, MCONSE, etc.77

As an engineering-based AA, Szeto was particularly sensitive to the tension

between architects and engineers within the society, and tried to express his idea of

multidiscipliniarity in the President Inauguration (W Szeto, 1959). He called upon

Society members’ to give greater recognition to the work of engineers’ which had

become increasingly important with the development of modern materials and

methods, such as steel frames, concrete construction, high-rise buildings, etc. At the

same time, he acknowledged the architect’s role as the planner and coordinator of the

building professional team, and believed that a deep knowledge of the structural

principles and possibilities widened an architect’s outlook and spurred his imagination.

He highly praised those international Master architects such as Frank Lloyd Wright,

Mies Van Der Rohe, and Le Corbusier who owed their achievement of masterpieces

of architecture with structural perfection to an intimate knowledge of engineering

principles. Then, he pointed out that it was essential to have close collaboration

between architect and engineer, not only during the design and construction process,

but also within building professional organizations. He made an appeal for Hong

76
According to a brief introduction about Szeto in The Builder, Vol.7, No.2, p.45.
77
The full titles are: Chartered Engineer, Fellow of The Institution of Civil Engineers, Fellow of The
Institute of Structural Engineers, Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Member of the
Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Fellow of the Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering and
Member of Association of Consulting Engineers. According to (Ng & Chu, 2007)

146
Kong to follow U.K.’s example 78 to form a higher council or hold joint meetings

between different professional bodies.

Szeto, not only tried to address the strained relations between architects and

engineers, but also tried to practice multidiscipliniarity. He joined many engineering

societies apart from the HKSA as mentioned above, and he made effort to develop his

artistic skills through painting and photography. His paintings had been exhibited and

were published in a two-volume book titled Reflections (Wai Szeto, 1980). He also

practiced the engineering principles of concrete and steel to achieve a consistent

aesthetic interest in many of his designs, similar to that of Le Corbusier, as Szeto

noted in the “Unite d’Habitation” and in the new buildings at Chandigarh, India.79

The other engineering-oriented President, Leslie

OUYANG Chao ( 欧 阳 昭 ) (Fig.III-12), originally

received both architectural and engineering training at

the St. John’s University in Shanghai before 1949 (Lai,

Qian, Wang, et al., c2004). Upon graduating from St.

John in 1949 with the degree of Bachelor of Science in

Architecture, Ouyang followed his classmate, Stanley Fig.III-12 OUYANG Chao

(欧阳昭, ?- )
KWOK Tun-Li (郭敦礼), to practice in Eric Cumine’s
(The Builder, Vol.12 No.5)

78
According to Szeto, Basil Spence in his recent presidential address to the R.I.B.A. proposed the
formation of a higher council between U.K.’s building professional bodies such as the Institutions of
Civil Engineers, Structural Engineers, Chartered Surveyors, the Town Planning Institute, the Institute
of Landscape Architects and the R.I.B.A.
79
For the projects Szeto designed with the aesthetic aspects that followed Le Corbusier and the New
Brutalism in British, see Chapter Four, Section Five.

147
firm in Hong Kong. 80 In fact, Kwok was one of the aforementioned “pure” migrant

architects who contributed to the founding of the HKSA and advocated the

recognition of the difference between the professions of architecture and engineering.

However, Ouyang chose a different way of development from Kwok, shifting his

major from architecture to engineering.

For example, Kwok furthered his architectural education in the A.A. School of

Architecture in London in 1953, while Ouyang went to London in 1957 to attend the

certificate examination for Structural Engineers. 81 After returning to Hong Kong,

Kwok continued to work with Eric Cumine and became one of the senior partners

from 1964 on while Ouyang left the firm and joined Wong Ng & Associates. In 1964,

Ouyang became the third partner in the firm, whose name was thus re-titled Wong,

Ng, Ouyang & Associates, and is known as Wong & Ouyang (HK) Ltd. today.82 The

co-operation between the three partners had Wong and Ng in charge of architectural

section, while Ouyang was in charge of engineering. Like Kwok in 1967, Ouyang

was also elected the President of the HKSA in 1970. Moreover, he was elected as

Chairman of the Institution of Structural Engineers (Hong Kong Section) in 1972.

With his architectural connections and engineering expertise, Ouyang became an

important representative between professional bodies and governmental departments.

For example, he “represented HKSA on the BOO Liaison Group…to produce a set of

structural regulations for enactment under the Building Ordinance in 1967”.83 He also

represented both Societies of architects and engineers in Liaison Groups with the

80
According to my interview with Kwok at Harbour Plaza, Kowloon on May 14th, 2007, Eric Cumine
practiced in Shanghai and taught at St. John’s U. before 1949. After he resumed his practice in Hong
Kong, Cumine’s firm accepted many St. John’s colleagues and graduates as employees or partners.
Kwok was one of the first five firm members when it re-opened in Hong Kong in December 1948.
Later, he introduced some of his classmates to the firm, including Ouyang.
81
(Hong Kong Institute of Architects., 2006), HKIA’s interview with Ouyang, pp.155-156
82
Ng left the firm in 1972. Since then, the firm changed its name to Wong & Ouyang.
83
See The Builder, Vol.1967, No.12, p.25.

148
PWD, and with the Fire Services Department to prepare the Fire Code (Lai, Qian,

Wang, et al., c2004).

The different way that Ouyang chose, as I understand, reflect Hong Kong’s

distinctive situation. Hong Kong was originally developed by surveyors and

engineers. It had delayed a clear professional identification in legislation, and had

heavily relied on the high-density and high-rise strategy to deal with the dilemma

between limited land and the immigrant population. For these reasons Hong Kong

needed an engineering-based AA such as Ouyang to enact multidiscipliniarity.

Ouyang as well as other engineering background migrant architects took this

opportunity to develop their own careers and thus contributed to the collaboration

between different building professional bodies in Hong Kong.

6 Summary

To sum up this chapter, a comparison between the profession of architecture

existing in Mainland China and Hong Kong before 1949 helps to figure out three

aspects of differences in professional sinicization, identification and organization. By

examining the three aspects in Hong Kong’s post-1949 conditions, it is found that the

response of the migrant architects to the differences led to the reform of the host

profession in related areas.

First of all, there was a rise in the status of the Chinese, breaking through the pre-

war Western domination: Chinese became the majority in the number of AA after

1949; their influence grew in parallel, more reports on them and their designs

appeared in the local journal The Builder; and they were among key members of the

core architects’ association, the HKSA. This rise in status was closely related to the

arrival of the migrant architects. Secondly, there was a growing architect-engineer

149
debate in the mid-1950s, leading to the amendment of the regulations regarding AA

registration. The debate indicated the growing new force of architects on one hand,

and the existing strong force of engineers on the other. Facing the challenge of

professional identification, the migrant architects gave their individual answers as to

whether they wished to be included into the list of architects or into that of engineers

under the title of “Authorized Architects”. Thirdly, it is found that those migrant

architects with strong architectural background acted differently from those who were

engineering-oriented when it comes to professional organization building. Those with

an architectural background helped to establish the HKSA in 1956, and to appeal for

the amendments of the regulations of AA registration in 1957, in order to identify

architects from engineers. At the same time, those who were engineering-oriented

contributed to tackling the tension inside the HKSA between “pure” architects and

engineering-based AA, and to building connections between different professional

bodies, in order to address multidisciplinarity.

150
 Chapter Four: Practice Re-establishment

Chapter Four investigates how the migrant architects re-established professional

and practical connections in the local market, and how their practices contributed to

architectural development in post-war Hong Kong. The term “re-establishment”

indicates that most of the migrant architects had run practices in Mainland China

before 1949, 1 and brought with them rich practical experience, former professional

partnership and old client relations, etc. in the 1949 migration. All these were

certainly advantageous in establishment of practices in Hong Kong.

The chapter begins with a background review of the political, economic and social

conditions as well as related building activities in post-war Hong Kong (Section One).

This may shed light on what the migrant architects would probably have seen in Hong

Kong’s building market upon arrival. In order to re-establish practices in such an

environment, the migrant architects needed to build a professional network (Section

Two). Whether they resumed their former professional partnerships is closely

examined. The migrant architects also needed to develop client relations (Section

Three). Their client relations are studied and categorized into different sectors. More

attention is paid to their old client relations with Mainland background, including the

upper stratum of Mainland entrepreneurs (Section Four) and the lower income sector

of Mainland refugees (Section Five)

1 New Momentum of Urban Development in Post-War Hong Kong

Hong Kong saw almost two million immigrants arrive in the first decade after the

war. Most of them came from Mainland China. On one hand, their arrival caused a

heavy burden on the Colony in terms of accommodation, employment, education,

1
Apart from those who studied or worked in universities.

151
transportation, public health and security, etc (Hambro & Mission., 1955). On the

other hand, they contributed to the development of the Colony in many aspects.2 The

migrant architects, as one group of Mainland immigrants obviously contributed to the

urban development by erecting numerous building projects. Before examining their

projects in detail, it should be first reviewed from a macro perspective of post-war

Hong Kong’s changing political, economic, and social situation, and its major urban

developments which were directly or indirectly related to Mainland China and

Mainland immigrants. This could form a solid context for understanding the

contributions of the migrant architects because their practice was largely carried out

through close relations with other groups of Mainland immigrants, either high level

entrepreneurs or lower income refugees.

A Modern History of Hong Kong by Tsang (2004) gives a clear contour of the

changing political, economic, and social situation of post-war Hong Kong. In the

book, the term “a fine balance” is used to describe the post-war political situation

(p.145). The fine balance, that Hong Kong strived to maintain, was firstly between the

governments of Britain and China in their competitive negotiations about Hong

Kong’s colonial status; secondly between the PRC Mainland China and the KMT

Taiwan in the continuing Chinese Civil War at the Taiwan Strait; thirdly between the

Soviet and US blocs in the Cold War in East Asia. However, with the outbreak of the

Korean War in 1950, the Cold War effects became dominant. In the Chinese-British

2
A pioneer study by Wong (1988) reveals the contributions of the Shanghai immigrant
entrepreneurs to the textile industry and the economic take-off in post-war Hong Kong. Studies on
the other Shanghai Hong Kong relations through immigrants could be found in the conferences and
seminars held by the Centre of Asian Studies at the Hong Kong University, such as the
international conference on Repositioning Hong Kong and Shanghai in modern Chinese history in
2002, and twelve seminars on The economic, social, and historic growth of Shanghai in c.2006, etc.
For example, topics on the building industry include “Bilateral asymmetries: Hong Kong and
Shanghai's building dynamics, 1916-1966” (Cody, 2002), and “Chinese architects coming from
Shanghai to Hong Kong after 1949” (Wang, 2006); on culture “From Shanghai pulp to Hong Kong
cinema: Universal Publisher and the Huang Ying stories (1946-1962)”, and “Mandarin pop and
Cantonese music: Hong Kong connection with Shanghai in music”; on economy “The textile
industry in Shanghai in the 1930s-1940s and its relation to Hong Kong”, and “Chinese bankers
coming to Hong Kong in, before or after 1949: the case of Chen Guangfu” (Lee, 2002).

152
negotiations, the British government saw Hong Kong from the Cold War perspective

rather than from that of fending off a Chinese claim for retrocession, and used Hong

Kong as a base to support British military and naval operations in Korea. In the Civil

War, the PRC was deterred from crossing the Taiwan Strait to destroy the remnants of

the KMT forces by PRC’s military interference in Korea. Hong Kong became more

valuable to the PRC in helping to break the embargoes the US and UN had imposed

on it as a result of the Korean War.

It was difficult for Hong Kong to survive in the above-mentioned political

struggles among the Great Powers. This it achieved by ignoring the Cold War effects

and upholding a policy of neutrality in Chinese politics (Tsang, 2004, pp.158-160). It

was harder to face the economic consequences of the embargoes and the closure of

the Sino-British border in the early 1950s. This cost Hong Kong its long-standing

role as the premier entrepôt between China and the West, and put an end to Hong

Kong’s continuous economic boom. Hong Kong had no choice but to face the

challenge and attempt a transformation of its economy.

Hong Kong transformed its economy from being China’s main entrepôt to being a

highly industrialized within a decade and a half. The most important driving force

behind Hong Kong’s industrialization was the upper echelon of Mainland immigrants,

the Chinese entrepreneurs. In parallel with the majority small entrepreneurs from

Guangdong Province were elite industrialists from Shanghai, particularly in the

spinning sector of the textile industry (Tsang, 2004, p.163). The Shanghai spinners set

up bigger factories with more advanced and expensive machinery, and brought more

sophisticated management and technology. Moreover, they took the lead in breaking

the long separation between the local Chinese and the Western communities by

approaching British banks for loans for their enterprises, just as they used to do in

Shanghai, a more cosmopolitan society than Hong Kong before the war (S. L. Wong,

153
1988). The positive response of the British banks to the Shanghai entrepreneurs

encouraged other Chinese to follow this practice. As a result, an economic symbiotic

relationship between the British and the Chinese developed, which set the solid

foundation for Hong Kong’s economic take-off in the late 1960s. In other words, the

Shanghai immigrant entrepreneurs contributed not only to the textile industry, which

became the most important economic activity, but also to the economic

transformation and take-off in Hong Kong.

As to the post-war social situation, the industrial expansion to some extent

relieved the employment pressure, for the majority of the immigrants were a cheap

and highly flexible labor force and could be employed as workers in the newly

established manufacturing industry.3 However, other social problems caused by the

large immigrant population had to be resolved through the government’s participation.

For example, the housing problem by 1950 was serious as the available houses were

filled to capacity with people overflowing into the streets and erecting large squatter

settlements on the urban periphery, on the roofs of buildings and in sheltered coastal

bays on boats (Pryor, 1983). At first, following its long-established non-

interventionist social policy (Tsang, 2004, p.198), the Hong Kong government

depended largely on private developers and semi-public societies to deal with the

housing problem.4 The government organized surveys and categorized the squatter

settlements as “approved” or “tolerated” areas for different controls. This practice

continued until December 1953 when a disastrous fire in a squatter settlement at Shek

Kip Mei in Kowloon made 53,000 people homeless overnight. It was this disaster that

3
By 1955, thirteen percent of the Chinese refugees in Hong Kong were industrial labourers, twelve
percent craftsmen, eleven percent coolies and servants, and another fifteen percent unemployed
(Hambro & Mission., 1955). By the end of the 1970s, nearly half of Hong Kong’s working population
was engaged in industry (Riedel & Universität Kiel. Institut für Weltwirtschaft., 1974).
4
For example, the Hong Kong Housing Society founded in 1951 provided new housing for middle-
income families, and the Hong Kong Settlers’ Housing Corporation founded in 1952 built cottages for
poor squatter families.

154
made Governor Grantham take the large Mainland immigrant population seriously,

accepting that they would not return to the Mainland as earlier waves of refugees had

done in the previous century but would be in Hong Kong to stay (Grantham, 1965,

pp.155-156). An emergency resettlement programme was thus introduced in response,

as the start of a formal governmental welfare programme which was later extended to

other social matters such as the health service, public education, etc. In other words,

social problems associated with Mainland immigrants became the main impetus to

further social reform in post-war Hong Kong, that is, to urge the government to

gradually change its social policy of non-intervention to that of a more positive

approach.

Particular urban development directly resulted from the above-mentioned

Mainland-related political, economic, and social changes. First of all, the economic

transformation from entrepôt to industrial city led to increasing factory building.

According to the Hong Kong Annual Report of 1949 to 1955, 5 factory building, after

living accommodation, ranked second in number in newly-proposed buildings, and

plans of 343 factories and 403 godowns or stores were submitted to the PWD for

approval by private industrialists or developers. However, the reality was that Hong

Kong had limited land and an already congested main urban area could not afford

enough factory sites, particularly large ones. Land requirement for industry urged the

government to build satellite new towns outside the main urban area, a strategy

influenced by the British “Garden City” concept and its post-war new town planning

examples (Lung, 1997). As early as 1949, Tsun Wan began to be developed into an

industrial satellite, 6 however, the first entire new town in Hong Kong planned to have

a clear separation of all the different functions of the town: industry, residence, leisure

and transport, took place in Kwun Tong in 1954. Though the planning in Kwun Tong

5
“New buildings and repairs” (or “Buildings”, “Urban buildings”), in Annual Report, 1949-1955
(Hong Kong.)
6
“Town Planning”, Annual Report, 1949

155
was later found to have problems (Leeming, 1977), leading to improvements in other

new town planning, it did make land for factory building and sustained industrial

growth at a high rate throughout the post-war period. By 1979, almost 4,000 factories

were built in Kwun Tong (Fig.IV-1).

Moreover, the successful economic transformation and the economic take-off in

the late 1960s, spurred building development, particularly in the private sector. For

example, Fig.IV-2 is a summary of private building development in Hong Kong from

1949 to 1979. The dark blue line shows the annual number of plans of new buildings,

both domestic and non-domestic, submitted by private developers for approval by the

PWD.7 The development process represented by the line could be briefly interpreted

as below. The rapid growth in the late 1950s was stimulated by the newly amended

1956 Building Ordinance to permit a very much higher density in land use for private

development.8 The decline after the peak in 1962 was caused by the new building

regulation introduced that year to scale down the permitted density of development.9

The development dropped to the bottom when the 1967 social disturbance occurred

(Tsang, 2004, pp.183-190). After that, the development soared in parallel with the

economic take-off. However, from the early 1970s, the line, that is the number of

plans submitted, no longer indicates the rapid growth of the building industry, for

though the number of plans remained stable, the project scale increased greatly. The

real state thus should be better judged by the value of the completed buildings, which

is indicated by the pink line. 10 It is true that governmental building regulations and

7
According to the Annual Report, the domestic buildings include living accommodation, with
European-type houses, flats, apartment blocks, housing schemes, Chinese-type tenements and low-cost
one-room flats, etc.; while the non-domestic buildings are of many other types, including factories,
godowns, schools, churches, offices, etc. Therefore, the number of annually-proposed new buildings
could represent the overall development in the private sector.
8
(Pryor, 1983), p.26
9
Ibid., p.30
10
From 1958, the Annual Report began to give the figures of the value of completed buildings.

156
social matters sometimes heavily influenced the development. However, there is no

dispute about the high rate growth of building industry in the three decades.

Furthermore, a series of social reforms enlarged the government’s welfare

programme, particularly its provision of housing. The emergency response to the

Shek Kip Mei Fire in 1953 was turned into a massive resettlement programme to

provide very basic-standard accommodation for the poorest squatters whose

settlements were cleared for development. In 1961, a government low-cost housing

scheme was introduced for lower-income families, who were neither squatters able to

share the resettlement estates, nor those who could afford the estates developed by the

Housing Society or the Housing Authorities for middle-income families. In 1972,

under the forceful direction of the newly appointed Governor, Sir Murray MacLehose,

the government formulated a ten-year housing programme, which, together with a

public assistance scheme and universal free education for nine years, has been

understood as the real change of the government’s policy on social welfare.11 The ten-

year project aimed to provide public housing for about one and a half million persons

through the development of low rental estates. To tackle the ambitious project, a new

Housing Authority was appointed in 1973 to direct the planning, building and

management of all public housing estates in Hong Kong. 12 The project also provided

further impetus for the development of new towns, because by the early 1970s, most

of the easily developable sites in the main urban areas that were available for public

housing had been used up, and new towns in the New Territories where there were

11
According to (Tsang, 2004), pp.197-208, through the welfare reform, the Hong Kong government
finally fulfilled the condition of benevolent paternalism, the last of the five conditions it achieved to
meet the best government in the Chinese political tradition, the other four are efficiency, fairness,
honesty, and non-intrusion into the lives of ordinary people.
12
The new Housing Authority took over the functions previous divided between the former Housing
Authority, the Urban Council, the Housing Board, the housing division of the Urban Services
Department, the Resettlement Department, and the Public Works Department. All estates previously
known as resettlement, government low-cost housing or Housing Authority estates are now officially
known as public housing estates.

157
considerable opportunities for large-scale development became the focus. Six new

towns were designated for the purpose, comprising Tsuen Wan, Sha Tin, Tuen Mun,

Yuen Long, Tai Po and Fanling.13 By 1981, the Housing Authority administered 101

estates with a total population of 1.8 million persons, of whom about thirty percent

lived in new towns, the rest in the main urban area.

Through reviewing the post-war political, economic, and social changes, which

were caused by the rise of the PRC regime and the influx of Mainland immigrants,

and through relating these changes to particular urban development activities such as

factory building, housing, new town planning, it is made clear that the coming of

Mainland immigrants, both entrepreneurs and lower income refugees, provided new

impetus for urban development in post-war Hong Kong.

2 Professional Partnership

An initial step for the migrant architects in the re-establishment of practices in

Hong Kong was to form partnerships. Here, “partnership” refers not only to the

choosing of partners when setting up practices, but also to the building of professional

networks in Hong Kong through formal and informal occasions, co-operation and

competitions, etc. To some extent, this could be understood as “Guan Xi” (关系), a

distinctive phenomenon of Chinese culture reflected in the architectural professional

field through the migrant architects. Therefore, this section starts with the narrower

scope of “partnership”, to investigate how the migrant architects began their practices

after arriving in Hong Kong, to run on their own account or to associate with others.

Then it tries to find other professional relations in terms of the broader scope of

“partnership”.

13
(Pryor, 1983), p.73

158
 Fig.IV-1 Industrial growth in Kwun Tong, 1957-1991
Source: (Sit, 2001)

2500 3500

3000
2000

2500

1500
HK$(million)
No.of Plans

2000

1500
1000

1000

500
500

0 0
49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

Year

Plans Submitted Value of Completed Buildings

Fig.IV-2 Private Building Development, 1949-1979

Source: (Hong Kong., Annual Report; Hong Kong. Buildings Ordinance Office.)

159
 2.1 Resumption of Former Professional Relations

It is found that the migrant architects began their practices in Hong Kong largely

based on former professional relations. They either enjoyed former fame, or followed

former employers or supervisors, or resumed former Hong Kong practices, or forged a

new partnership through kinship or former academic ties. First of all, those migrant

architects who had already developed a high reputation in Mainland China preferred

to practice under their former names for greater recognition. Some famous individual

architects used their own names in their firm’s title. For example, Robert FAN Wen

Zhao（范文照）, LUKE Him-sau（陆谦受）, and YUEN Tat-Cho（阮达祖）

opened the firms Robert Fan Architects & Engineers; H.S. Luke & Associates; and

Yuen, T.C. & Co. respectively. Some key partners of famous architectural firms

continued to practice under the same names. For example, CHU Pin（朱彬）, one of

the three founders of the firm Kwan, Chu & Yang (基泰工程司) in 1928, continued

to use the name KC&Y when practicing in Hong Kong, though Kwan had moved to

Taiwan, and Yang stayed in Mainland China after 1949.14 Similarly, SU Gin Djih

（徐敬直）, one of the three founders of Hsin Yieh Architects & Associates（兴业

建筑师事务所）in 1933, used the name Hsin Yieh in Hong Kong without the other

two partners’ participation. 15 Both KC&Y and Hsin Yieh were among the top ten

Chinese architectural firms in Republican China.16

Secondly, some migrant architects did not open their own practices, but re-joined

former firms, which had also moved from Mainland China to Hong Kong. For

example, CHANG Harding-ding （ 张 孝 庭 ） and James O’YOUNG ( 欧 阳 泽 生 )

14
For Kwan, Chu, and Yang’s different decisions when facing the 1949 migration, see Chapter Two,
Section Three, Sub-section Three.
15
The other two partners of Hsin Yieh were YANG Jenken（杨润钧）and LEI Wai Paak（李惠伯）.
Up to the present, no records show that they once practiced in Hong Kong. It is said that Lei might
have come to Hong Kong with Su, but passed away suddenly (Zhang, 1994, p.62).
16
The top ten Chinese architectural firms in the Republic era are listed in Lai et al., (2006).

160
worked with P&T’s Shanghai office before 1949. Chang received engineering

training at Chicago, and worked as a civil engineer in P&T in Shanghai from 1927 to

1942. O’Young was born in Australia, originally trained at Neutral Bay Technical

School in Sydney, and furthered his education at Henry Lester Institute in Shanghai.

He joined P&T from 1933 to 1941, first in Shanghai as a draughtsman and then in

Rangoon as senior architectural assistant. As mentioned in Chapter Two, after the

outbreak of the full-scale Sino-Japanese war in 1937, most non-Chinese architects left

war-torn China. This included P&T, while the majority of Chinese architects, such as

Chang, stayed until the eve of the Communist victory. Unlike Chang, O’Young, who

was born outside China and might not have had a strong Chinese identity, followed

P&T to Rangoon in 1937. After P&T re-opened its headquarter in Hong Kong in

1946, both Chang and O’Young re-joined the firm. Chang led the firm’s structural

engineering section from the early 1950s, and was given a nickname “Deep Beam”

Harding Chang because of his style of structural design.17 And, O’Young continued to

work as senior architectural assistant.

Another example of re-joining a former employer, or more accurately a supervisor,

is William LING Wei-li (林威理). Ling did not have formal architectural education.

After middle school Ling began to receive personal tuition from Eric Cumine of

Cumine & Co. in Shanghai from 1930. As mentioned in Chapter One, Cumine was a

Shanghai-born London-trained Eurasian architect, speaking Shanghai Hua, Cantonese,

and English fluently. Because of his special background, Cumine did not leave

Shanghai as most non-Chinese architects did after 1937. He was even imprisoned by

the Japanese from 1943 to 1945 in the internment of allied civilians at Lunghua near

17
Purvis (1985), when introducing the new structural engineering section of the firm, mentions “in the
early fifties, they were led by ‘Deep-Beam’ Harding Chang, a man whose nickname was well deserved
and whose buildings frustrated many a demolition contractor---and some architects.”

161
Shanghai.18 He came to Hong Kong and re-opened his practice in December 1948.

The practice continued to grow for more than twenty years because Cumine

maintained a long lasting acquaintance and professional relationship with the Lei

family (利氏家族),19 who established their “real estate empire” in Causeway Bay.20

Ling worked with Cumine in Shanghai until at least 1940. He was one of the five

members of the firm upon its re-opening in Hong Kong, and worked as chief assistant

in most projects the firm designed in the early 1950s including the Embassy Court for

the Lei family and North Point Housing Scheme for the Housing Authority (Fig.IV-

21). In 1956, Ling was elected a Foundation Member of the HKSA. In 1966, he

became one of the key partners in Cumine’s firm.

Examples of re-joining former employers or supervisors did not happen in non-

Chinese firms only, but also in famous firms run by Chinese architects. For instance,

WU Chi-Koei (吴继轨), after graduating with Diplome d’Ingenierur from Institut

Technique Franco-Chinois (中法工学院) in Shanghai in 1935, received architectural

training under SU Gin Djih（徐敬直）of Hsin Yieh Architects. He followed Su as a

junior partner first working in Shanghai and Nanjing, then retreating to Kunming after

1937, and finally coming to Hong Kong in 1948. Wu participated in Hsin Yieh under

Su on Hong Kong projects that included: the Pao Hsing Cotton Mill (1948), the New

Church for the Seventh Day Adventists (1950), the Ritz Cinema (1953) and the

Theatre Royal (1959), etc. (Fig. IV-8, 18)

18
Cumine drew many comic sketches during his imprisonment at Lunghua Camp. Later, he published
them in a book (Cumine, 1974).
19
According to Ng & Chu (2005), it had been estimated that between the years 1949-1987, the firm
Eric Cumine and Associates had participated in designing twelve large hotels in Hong Kong and
Macau, seventy-three blocks of flats, twenty-nine offices, and 700 other various types of buildings.
20
(Feng, 1997), p.221

162
 Thirdly, those migrant architects, who had practiced in Hong Kong before 1949,

preferred to resume former practices or partnerships. Some re-opened their own

practices, for example, CHIU Kwan-chee（ 赵君慈）, IU Tak-lam（姚德霖）,

MOK York-chan（莫若灿）, and SIU Ho Ming (萧浩明). All studied at HKU

before 1949. Apart from Mok whose native place was Shanghai, the others originally

came from Guangdong Province. After graduating with the degree of Bachelor of

Science in Civil Engineering from HKU, they registered as AA and opened their own

practices in Hong Kong in the 1920s or 1930s. During the Japanese occupation of

Hong Kong, they went to practice in Guangdong Province. In the late 1940s, they

returned to Hong Kong and resumed architectural practices under their own names.

Some re-joined former firms, for example, WONG Ting Ki (王定基) who was born in

Hong Kong. After his study at Queen’s College, he became an architect’s assistant

with Messrs. Way & Hall, Architects & Surveyors in the late 1930s.21 During the

Japanese Occupation, Wong also went to Guangdong Province, first studying for a

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering at the National Sun Yat-Sen University (中

山大学) in Guangzhou, then working as an engineer in charge of the Surveying Party

of the Hunan-Kwangsi-Kweichow Railway Kwangtung Branch. After returning to

Hong Kong in 1947, he re-joined the firm Way & Hall, and was promoted to the post

of surveyor and structural engineer because of his Mainland study and working

experience.

Fourthly, some migrant architects preferred to forge partnership through kinship

or academic ties. In terms of kinship, as mentioned in Chapter Two, KWAN Sung-

sing ( 关 颂 声 ), the founder of KC&Y, had maintained a close professional co-

operation with his cousin, KWAN Wing-hong (关永康) ever since the pre-1949 era.

Moreover, some famous migrant architects trained their sons to be architects and

21
Way & Hall was established in the 1920’s by two Eurasian architects, Harry WAY alias SUN Pak
Way (孙伯伟) and George Albert Victor HALL（冼文聘）.

163
partners. The examples of the father-and-son partnership among the migrant

architects included, as I discovered, Robert FAN Wen Zhao (范文照) and his two

sons Robert FAN Zheng (范政) and Benjamin FAN Bing (范斌); SU Gin Djih (徐敬

直) and his son William HSU Wo Teh (徐和德); and IU Tak-lam (姚德霖) and his

son IU Po Chiu (姚保照). Using the Fan family as an example, the father, FAN Wen

Zhao, received both engineering and architectural training. He graduated with the

degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from St. John’s University in

Shanghai in 1917 and the degree of Bachelor of Architecture from U. Penn. in 1921.

He opened his own practice in Shanghai in 1927. During the same year, he founded

the Society of Chinese Architects with several others, and was elected as the first

President. When Fan came to Hong Kong in the late 1940s, his elder son FAN Zheng

(范政), also named Robert, stayed in Shanghai, and attended the same University as

Fan, the St. John’s U.

Robert FAN Zheng was in the 1953 Bachelor degree in Architecture, but had to

leave Shanghai in 1952 due to the deterioration in the political situation in Mainland.

After a short period of working in his father’s office in Hong Kong, he furthered his

architectural education at Harvard University, and obtained the degree of Master in

Architecture in 1956. Again, he worked with his father in Hong Kong, from 1958 to

1963. When answering my question regarding the father-and-son partnership, FAN

Zheng wrote:

“My father pretty much let me have a free hand in the preliminary concept

and design development phase without any interference except when it came

to the practical aspect of the scheme. Many times during the design process

we would have mutual input to the project. After all, I had only two years of

practical experience in the US. As it turned out, I always consulted with him

on practical issues……”22

22
Robert FAN Zheng’s letter to me on April 25th, 2005.

164
Junior Fan and his wife Mrs. Doreen FAN Young Tsin-wai,（范杨展慧）, who is

also an architect, 23 left Hong Kong in 1963, and practiced architecture in San

Francisco, the US. His younger brother Benjamin Fan, a mechanical engineer,

succeeded him working with their father FAN Wen Zhao in Hong Kong. 24

As far as academic ties are concerned, some migrant architects preferred to join a

partnership run by their former university supervisors or colleagues. The academic tie

between Eric Cumine and those from the Department of Architecture at the St. John’s

University in Shanghai is a case in point. As mentioned earlier, Cumine once acted as

a part-time studio master in the department in the 1940s. When he re-opened his

practice in Hong Kong in 1948, Stanley KWOK Tun-Li（郭敦礼）, an architectural

graduate from the department, was introduced to him through his good friend Richard

Paulick,25 who was also a teacher in the department. As a result, Kwok became one

of the five members of the firm upon its re-opening in Hong Kong. Later, Kwok

introduced other alumni of the department to work with the firm, including Leslie

OUYANG Chao（欧阳昭）, CHANG Chao Kang（张肇康), XU Zhi Xiang (徐志

湘), ZHOU Wen Zheng (周文正) and his wife WEI Nai Qin (韦耐勤), as well as Ada

KWOK （郭丽荣）, who is Kwok’s younger sister. 26 Apart from the graduates, A. J.

23
Young was one of the first architectural graduates from HKU in 1955 (B. Arch.), a Harvard graduate
in 1957 (M. Arch.), and registered as Hong Kong A.A. in 1960. From 1958 to 1962, when Junior Fan
worked with his father, Young joined Eric Cumine’s firm as an architect. Later, Fan and Young opened
their own practice in San Francisco, and live there up to the present.
24
Robert FAN Zheng’s letter to me on October 1st, 2004.
25
Richard Paulick was a Bauhaus graduate and an assistant of Gropius in Dessau. He taught Urban
Planning, Architecture, and Interior Design in the department (Qian, Lai, & Wang, c2004). He also
opened his own practice in Shanghai, specializing in interior design. Some architectural students of the
department such as Paul C. CHEN (程观尧) once worked with the firm to obtain practical experience.
Paulick left Shanghai in the late 1940s, and worked as an architect in East Berlin. The projects he
designed include Stalinallee. My telephone interviews with Kwok in April, 2007.
26
My telephone interviews with Kwok in April, 2007. In addition, apart from Ouyang and Chang, the
others are not selected as the migrant architects, for they were not registered as A.A., and worked in the
firm for a short period. Xu and the couple returned to Mainland China. Kwok’s sister did not practice
architecture later.

165
Brandt,27 a teacher in the department, also worked in Cumine’s firm. A group photo

of the firm published in 1957 includes many of the above-mentioned members

(Fig.IV-3).

Another example of academic ties occurred in the firm run by YUEN Tat-Cho

（阮达祖）. Yuen received both engineering and architectural training. He first

graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from HKU,

and then obtained a Bachelor of Architecture degree from University of Liverpool. In

his Hong Kong practice he employed CHAU Po Cheung ( 周 宝 璋 ), a HKU

engineering graduate; and CHAN Kwok Koon (陈国冠), an alumnus at Liverpool. It

should be noted that Chan entered the firm temporarily (Look, 1952, p.383). In other

words, sometimes, academic ties did not result in a formal partnership, but a

temporary association, in which those who had already resumed practices helped the

relatively “new” comers to adapt to the Hong Kong market. Similarly, LEE Tuh-Fuh

(李德复）, a London-trained migrant architect, when applying for the AA registration

in 1949, provided his temporary office as “c/o H.S. Luke, 601 Pedder Building”.28

This was the office address of LUKE Him-sau（陆谦受）from 1948 to 1952. Luke

was a graduate with a Diploma from the A.A. School of Architecture in London. The

same London educational background was probably the main reason for the

temporary association.

2.2 New Professional Network Building

This research also discovers other kinds of professional relationships experienced

by the migrant architects when it comes to the broader scope of partnership. The

HKSA, the HKU, offices, studios, building sites, churches and even ferries, provided

27
A. J. Brandt had the same educational background as Cumine, both graduates from the A.A. School
of Architecture in London. He taught Construction in the department (Qian et al., c2004)
28
Archives kept in Hong Kong PRO.

166
occasions for building new professional relationships. According to Stanley KWOK

Tun-Li（郭敦礼）, he often met and chatted with CHU Pin（朱彬）on the ferry

from Yaumati to the Central on their way to their offices.29 During the 1950s and

1960s, Kwok worked with Eric Cumine’s firm in Embassy Court in Causeway Bay,

while Chu’s firm, that is KC&Y, was located in the Man Yee Building, the Central. It

is worth noting that both buildings were each firm’s most successful projects in the

early 1950s, and gained a high reputation for their designers in the local professional

field.30

Sometimes, the migrant architects would frequently meet each other around their

offices, which were located in the same building, or even on the same floor. For

example, Robert FAN Wen Zhao（范文照）and LEE Young On（李扬安）, both

graduated from U. Penn., set up their Hong Kong offices on the fourth floor of

Alexandra House, Des Voeux Road Central.31 Apart from at their offices, Fan and

Lee also gathered in the North Point Methodist Church, which was founded for and

by immigrant believers from Mainland China, particularly those from Shanghai. Lee

joined the church in 1954. Fan was a good friend of the church founder, Dr. S. R.

Anderson.32 Both Lee and Fan contributed to the establishment and development of

the church buildings. 33 Moreover, through the church network, they also got into

contact with local professionals. For example, Professor David P Y LUNG of the

Department of Architecture at HKU once received basic architectural training under

29
My telephone interviews with Kwok in April, 2007.
30
Chu and his design of Man Yee Building will be studied in Chapter Five, Section Five, Sub-section
One.
31
Year Book (Hong Kong Society of Architects.), 1959, 1966
32
This is according to Rev. Lam Sung Che（林崇智）at the North Point Methodist Church.
33
The design of the church buildings will be studied in Chapter Five, Section Four, Sub-section Two.

167
Fan, when Lung was a secondary school student. The opportunity occurred because

his parents were church members and local building professionals.34

Of course, not all migrant architects met in such an exciting way as Kwok and

Chu, or kept up such an impressive relationship as Fan and Lee. They would gather

on other formal occasions, for example, in the HKSA. From the time of its

establishment in 1956, the HKSA became a platform for communication between

architectural professionals, particularly its members. Apart from the regular annual

meeting, it held many informal gatherings where dinner was served, speeches and

lectures were delivered, and films and slides were shared.35 It also produced different

kinds of publications, including the annual Year Book (renamed Annual Report in

1974) from at least 1959;36 the frequent circular letters which were published as the

monthly The Architect from 1975 to 1980;37 the quarter HKIA Journal in 1986 and

since 1995 38 and the annual members’ directories since 1980. 39 More than forty

34
Professor Lung, when speaking with me in October 2004, said that he is the last student of Fan. His
father, working in a construction company as a developer, was responsible for many important projects
in Hong Kong in his time, including the State Theater. Also see (Hong Kong Institute of Architects.,
2006, p.99)
35
From 1956 to 1958, almost each issue of The Builder reported the activities organized by the newly
formed Society. See Vol.12, No.3, p.31; Vol.12, No.4, p.19; Vol.12, No.5, p.15; Vol.12, No.6, p.17;
Vol.13, No.1, p.39; Vol.13, No.4, p.35.
36
(Hong Kong Society of), A. Year book (Vol. 1959-1972.). Hong Kong: the Society;
(Hong Kong Institute of), A. Annual report (Vol. 1974-). Hong Kong: the Institute.
37
(Hong Kong Institute of), A. Newsletter, Hong Kong: the Institute;
(HKIA newsletter : the official newsletter of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects) (Vol. Ceased with
Nov./Dec. 2003.). Hong Kong: the Institute;
(The Architect). (Vol. 1975-). Hong Kong: the Institute.
38
(HKIA journal). Hong Kong: the Institute.
(HKIA journal). Hong Kong: PACE Publishing Ltd.
The initial issue of the HKIA Journal was published in 1986. However, for unknown reasons, the
publication was discontinued until 1995.
39
(List of architectural practices). (Vol. Ceased in 1981.). Hong Kong: the Institute
(Architects practices, 1982). Hong Kong: the Institute.

168
percent of the migrant architects joined the society,40 which allowed them to easily

keep in touch with each other through meetings, publications as well as other

activities. Robert FAN Zheng （ 范 政 ） recalled that the society was the most

important place for him to meet other architects during his practicing in Hong Kong

from 1958 to 1963.41

The Department of Architecture at HKU should be considered another important

platform for mutual communication between the academic and the practicing

professionals, including the migrant architects. At least seven migrant architects once

engaged as full-time or part-time lecturers or studio masters in the department. 42

Practicing architects entered the department to broaden students’ perspective. Stanley

KWOK Tun-Li（郭敦礼）remembered that he and other architects in Cumine’ firm

in turn acted as studio masters in the department every week in the early 1950s, for

Cumine was a good friend of Professor Raymond Gordon Brown, the Founder and

Head of the department. Cumine himself was also invited to give lectures on his own

designs.43 From 1966 to 1967, just before Kwok left Hong Kong for Canada, he was

invited by Professor Wallace Guard Gregory, the Department Head, to operate as the

40
Year Book (Hong Kong Society of Architects.), 1959, 1966
41
Robert FAN Zheng and his wife Doreen FAN currently live in San Francisco, U.S. The author was
given an opportunity to conduct a face-to-face interview with him at City Hall on November 8th, 2006,
when the couple visited Hong Kong. Because Doreen was among the first architectural graduates from
HKU in 1956, they were invited to attend the fiftieth anniversary held by the department.
42
Those full-time lecturers include David WONG Chung Hong（黄颂康）, Associate Architect to
Professor R. Gordon Brown, from 1954; Canning YOUNG Kai Mei（杨介眉）, from 1950; and
YUAN Mrs. Ying-hsi (袁成莹犀), on Theory of Structure, before 1957. The part-time lecturers or
studio masters were WONG Kwok Shuen（黄国璇）, lecturer on Theory of Structure, 1951-54;
Stanley KWOK Tun-Li（郭敦礼）, studio master, before 1957, External Examiner and Year Four
Master, 1966-67; Leslie OUYANG Chao（欧阳昭）, lecturer on Structural Design, Professional
Practice and Management; CHANG Chao Kang （张肇康）, studio master and lecturer on Chinese
Traditional Architecture, 1979-1984.
43
One lecture given by Cumine and Kwok in 1957 was reported by The Builder, Vol.12, No.5, p.46.

169
External Examiner and Year Four Master. Among the students he taught, there were

today’s senior local architects such as Dennis Lau（刘荣广）.44

On the other hand, HKU architectural graduates went into offices run by

practicing architects to obtain experience. According to Robert FAN Zheng（范

政）,45 one of the first architectural graduates from HKU in 1955, Eddy KHOE Kian

Tjiang （丘建漳）spent his three-year practical experience with the firm Robert Fan

Architects & Engineers, and then registered as an AA in 1959. Not only students, but

also professors reached out to the practicing side of the profession. Also according to

Fan,46 a stable relationship was developed between the firm Robert Fan and Professor

Mackey of HKU and his structural engineering consultant firm for medium or large

scale projects. Professor Mackey also co-operated with other migrant architects, for

instance with YUEN Tat-Cho（阮达祖）in the design of Hang Chong Building, to

produce a split-level reinforced concrete raft foundation for the twenty-two-storey

high tower on soil strata.47

Still other important occasions for communication occurred when there was co-

operation between different architectural firms to design one large project. The

design of So Uk Estate for the Housing Authority in 1957 is a case in point. The

project was jointly designed by five famous architectural firms in post-war Hong

Kong, with the master plan designed by Eric Cumine, Blocks M, A, B, C, D by Chau

& Lee, Blocks E, F, G, H, I by SZETO Wai (司徒惠), Blocks R,P,Q by LUKE Him-

sau （ 陆 谦 受 ） , and Blocks S,T,U by Leigh & Orange (Fig.IV-4). 48 Forces

representing different backgrounds were involved in this co-operation. Luke and

44
See footnote 29 above.
45
See footnote 24 above.
46
Ibid.
47
The Builder, Vol.1965, No.1, pp.49-51
48
Ibid., Vol.13, No.1, pp.5-7

170
Szeto were Chinese migrant architects; Chau & Lee, local Chinese; Leigh & Orange,

local non-Chinese, and Cumine, a non-Chinese architect who had migrated from

Shanghai to Hong Kong in the late 1940s with the same motivation as the Chinese

migrant architects. Therefore, it is not surprising that Cumine with a dual background

was able to convene this co-operation between the migrant and the local, the Chinese

and the non-Chinese. The integrated and comprehensive scheme announced a

successful co-operation and communication between architects of the various

backgrounds.

Sometimes, competitions were more influential than co-operation for architects to

become better acquainted. This research discovers a competition called by Kowloon

Diocesan Boy’s School for the design of a gymnasium in 1951.49 A total of nine

architects of various backgrounds were invited. Three migrant architects: KUO

Yuan-hsi (过元熙), KWAN Wing-hong (关永康) and YUEN Tat-Cho (阮达祖);

three local non-Chinese architects: G A V Hall of Way & Hall, Frank Grose of P&T

and John Moraes; and three local Chinese architects: Richard Lee (李礼之) of Chau

& Lee, FOK Nai-hang (霍乃铿) and LEE Chung-chee (李仲箎). It appears that the

competition drew a wide attention in the architectural profession because not only the

newly-arrived migrant architects but also the long-established local architects

participated, such as Wall & Hall, P&T, Chau & Lee, and N H Fok. Finally, it was

two migrant architects who were the winners. Guo won first place and designed the

gymnasium (Fig.IV-5), while Yuen came second. Through the competition, the

migrant architects became acknowledged among local architects.

49
According to the archives kept in the P.R.O., file no. HKMS85-1-21

171
172
 In conclusion, it is found that the former professional relationships of the migrant

architects were largely preserved when they set up practices in Hong Kong. New

professional relationships were built through contact between individual architects on

important communication platforms such as the HKSA and the HKU, and through co-

operative projects and competitions. As a result, a wider ranging professional

network of the migrant architects came into being in Hong Kong.

3 Client Relations

As shown in the background review of Section One, the coming of Mainland

immigrants, both entrepreneurs and lower income refugees, provided new impetus for

urban development in post-war Hong Kong. Then, how did the migrant architects, as

a group of Mainland immigrants on one hand, and as building professionals on the

other, take advantage of the new impetus? Did they co-operate with Mainland

entrepreneurs? It is mentioned in Chapter Two that some architects came to Hong

Kong in order to catch up with their major clients who shifted their businesses to

Hong Kong around 1949. If so, did they re-establish their former client relationships?

And, did they build for less affluent refugees? Or, in other words, did they engage in

the welfare commissions organized by the government or other public organizations?

Client relations study, as I argue, may serve as an important key to answer the

above questions. Through client relations, the practices of the migrant architects can

be related to particular urban developments. In other words, individual architects’

practices can be related to the macro picture of urban development in post-war Hong

Kong. This research identifies three categories of clients of the migrant architects: the

public, the private, and those who belong to an overlapping category (Fig.IV-6).

173
 Fig.IV-6 Client Classification in Post-war Hong Kong

3.1 The Public Sector

In the public sector, the Hong Kong government and its departments are the client

authorities. In fact, the government has remained the largest landlord, the biggest

developer of real estate and the leading constructor throughout the post-war era. 50

The government’s architect is the Architectural Office (hereafter abbreviated as

“AO”), currently known as Architectural Service Department.51 It used to be one of

the branches of the former Public Works Department (PWD).

The AO designed most public buildings financed by the government in the post-

war era. For example, it provided architectural and associated services to different

client authorities such as Education, Social Welfare, Police, etc., involving the design

for different building types including schools, clinics, hospitals, police stations, fire

stations, prisons, Government administrative offices, workshops, and playgrounds.

Moreover, with the increase in the government’s social reforms, the AO was

responsible for the design of resettlement estates after the Shek Kip Mei Fire in 1953,

and low-cost housing estates from 1961. Up to 1974, when the newly appointed

50
(Youngson, 1982), p.123-36
51
(Hong Kong. Architectural Services Dept., 1997)

174
Housing Authority took over the responsibility for all the public housing estates in

Hong Kong, the AO as well as other associated offices of the PWD, designed and

built52 216,486 flats in resettlement estates ranging from Mark I to Mark VI, and

68,621 flats in low-cost housing estates of both old and new types.53

In order to handle these above-mentioned commissions, the AO had a large

number of professional, technical, and clerical staff. According to the statistics in

1986,54 there was a total of 2,250 staff within the AO, of whom 316 were professional

officers. The AO professionals, though only a few were registered as private

Authorized Architects, had a strong influence on the Hong Kong architectural

profession. As mentioned earlier in Chapter Three, it was PWD officials who made

the effort to form an architects’ association before the war, and they made up thirty-

three percent, or nine persons, of the twenty-seven foundation members of the HKSA

in 1956. At least three migrant architects served in the AO: CHAN Hung Yip (陈洪

业), WONG Hong-Yuen（黄匡原）, and WONG Ting-Tsai（王定斋）. Among

them, T.T. Wong was the AO’s chief architect from 1953 to 1966, and designed many

police stations and quarters. 55 In other words, the three migrant architects served

governmental clients in the public sector (Fig.IV-7).

52
The PWD was responsible for the design and construction of these estates, but not for the
maintenance. Upon completion, the subsequent management of the low-cost housing estates became
the responsibility of the former Housing Authority, while resettlement estates came under the
jurisdiction of the Urban Council with administration by the Resettlement Department.
53
(Hong Kong Housing, Authority), Annual Report, 1981, cited in (Pryor, 1983), p.92
54
(Hong Kong. Lands and Works Branch. Information and Public Relations Unit. & Hong Kong.
Building Development Dept., 1986)
55
For more on the police station in Arsenal Street, see The Builder, Vol.10, No.1, pp.25-27. For more
on the quarters in Wong Tai Sin, see Vol.1967, No.12, pp.40-44. The author would like to thank
Professor GU Da Qing (顾大庆) of the Department of Architecture, CUHK, for providing the photos
about the other police quarters designed by T.T. Wong. Professor Gu and his students are carrying out
an in-depth case study on T.T. Wong, comparing his police quarters design with Le Corbusier’s
apartment design.

175
Fig.IV-8 The Public Sector: Migrant Architects as AO Professionals56

56
A brief introduction to images in Fig.IV-7 to Fig.IV-25 is given below each image, including the
designers’ name, the buildings’ name, and sources. Many images are cited from The Builder, thus it is
abbreviated as “The Builder vol.-no.-pages” in the introduction.

176
 3.2 The Private Sector

The clients of the private sector are numerous private owners, entrepreneurs, and

developers. Together they make up the major force in Hong Kong’s building market.

Apart from residential development, in which public housing is competitive with

private housing,57 other developments in industry, commerce and property are mainly

supplied by the private sector. 58 Based on market criteria, private development

coincides with the rate of economic growth, and is influenced by government policies

and social matters as proven in the background review in the previous section. 59 It

developed in parallel with Hong Kong’s economic growth throughout the post-war

period, particularly the economic take-off in the late 1960s when private development

sustained rapid progress, and thus made a great contribution to urban development.

The architects who work for private clients are Authorized Architects (AA, known

as Authorized Persons, or AP, since 1974). They prepare and submit plans for new

buildings on behalf of private clients to the Building Authority Office of the PWD,

currently known as the Building Department. The plans submitted by AA (or AP) for

private development are under strict and complicated building control through a lease,

planning, and building code, while the public development sector is only affected by

internal governmental administrative control. 60 Just as private development grew

rapidly and became the major force in the building market, the number of AA (or AP)

57
Before the massive public housing programme was initiated by the government in 1954, it was
private enterprise that largely took on the job of providing new housing for the Colony. Up to 1981,
there was still forty-eight percent of the population, that is 2.375 million people, living in private
housing, while thirty-eight percent were in public housing. See 1981 Census, cited in (Pryor, 1983), p.
103
58
(Sun Hung Kai Securities Ltd., 1974} , The property sector in Hong Kong
59
See the study of private building development from 1949 to 1979 (Fig.IV-2) in Section One of this
chapter.
60
(W. S. Wong & University of Hong Kong., 2003), p. 11.4

177
increased from eighty-nine in 1949 to 483 in 1979, 61 and AP became the central

figures among Hong Kong’s building professionals because they began to share the

government’s administrative duties and site inspection role in the above mentioned

building control of private development after 1974.62

All of the migrant architects with three exceptions registered as AA.63 In other

words, most of them mainly worked for private clients. As mentioned in the

background review in the previous Section One, the upper strata of Mainland

immigrants of the 1949 migration, particularly those entrepreneurs from Shanghai,

contributed greatly to the economic transformation and take-off in Hong Kong.

According to Wong (1988, pp.6-8), the Shanghai entrepreneurs engaged in various

areas of Hong Kong’s economy, with about one-third in the textile industry, followed

by banking, commerce, real estate, construction, shipping, film production, other

manufacturing businesses. At the same time, this research discovers that many of the

migrant architects’ commissions were textile factories; banks; composite buildings

normally with shops on lower floors and offices or apartments above; all categories of

living accommodation including European-type houses, Chinese-type tenements,

apartments, housing schemes, staff quarters, working-class flats and dormitories, as

well as cinemas and theaters (Fig.IV-8~18). It seems that the building types that the

migrant architects designed coincided with those aspects of the economy that the

Shanghai entrepreneurs were engaged in. Were the Shanghai entrepreneurs, as well

as those from other parts of Mainland China in the 1949 migration, the clients of the

migrant architects in the private sector? If so, how did the co-operations occur? Was

this a resumption of former client relations? These questions are worth further study.

61
A.A. Annual List in 1949 and 1979.
62
Edwin Chan Hon Wan: “Professional Liability and indemnity insurance for architects: Authorized
Persons in Hong Kong”, in (W. S. Wong & Chan, 1997), pp.43-67
63
See Chapter One, Section Two.

178
Fig.IV-8 The Private Sector I: Textitle Factories by Migrant Architects

179
Fig.IV-9 The Private Sector II: Banks by Migrant Architects

180
Fig.IV-10 The Private Sector III: Composite Buildings by Migrant Architects

181
Fig.IV-11 The Private Sector IV: Composite Buildings by Migrant Architects

182
Fig.IV-12 The Private Sector V: Hotels by Migrant Architects

183
Fig.IV-13 The Private Sector VI: Villas by Migrant Architects

184
Fig.IV-14 The Private Sector VII: Apartments by Migrant Architects I

185
Fig.IV-15 The Private Sector VIII: Apartments by Migrant Architects II

186
Fig.IV-16 The Private Sector IX: Apartments by Migrant Architects III

187
Fig.IV-17 The Private Sector X: Apartments by Migrant Architects IV

188
Fig.IV-18 The Private Sector XI: Theaters by Migrant Architects

189
 3.3 The Overlapping Sector

Some post-war developments and their clients had a dual background involved in

both public and private sectors. First of all, a few AO professionals, through

registering as private Authorized Architects, also designed for private clients, though

their main responsibility was to serve governmental client authorities. In fact, all of

the three migrant architects who served in the AO registered as AA. Among them,

WONG Hong-Yuen （ 黄 匡 原 ） was particularly active in the private sector,

designing many apartments, villas, and hotels (Fig.IV-19).

Secondly, when the government’s architectural agencies such as the AO, or the

architectural branch of the former Housing Authority, (hereafter abbreviated as “HA”),

lacked manpower at a particular time or needed specialist expertise in a particular

field, it awarded public projects to private architects.64 For example, according to

SZETO Wai (司徒惠) in his inauguration speech as president of the HKSA (1959,

p.52) after its establishment in 1954, the HA “farmed out large numbers of projects to

private architects”. As mentioned in the previous Section Two, Subsection Two,

Szeto himself, as well as LUKE Him-sau（陆谦受） participated in the co-operative

effort convened by Eric Cumine in 1957 to design the So Uk Estate. In fact, the So

Uk Estate was a HA commission. Similarly, William LING Wei-li ( 林 威 理 ),

Cumine’s chief assistant, participated in another HA’s commission, the North Point

Housing Scheme in 1955. In addition, PANG Dick-noe（彭涤奴） who worked

with P&T, was one of the two designers for the HA’s commission, the Choi Hong

Estate in 1961 (Fig.IV-21). The design of the Choi Hong Estate was awarded the first

64
(Hong Kong. Lands and Works Branch. Information and Public Relations Unit. & Hong Kong.
Building Development Dept., 1986), p.19

190
Silver Medal by the HKSA in 1965.65 All the above Chinese architects were the

migrant architects. They engaged in HA’s commissions through famous non-Chinese

architects or architectural firms.

Like the HA, the AO also awarded projects to private architects. Moreover, the

AO commissions covered a wider range of building types than those of the HA,

including public housing and other governmental and welfare projects. Among the

migrant architects, SU Gin Djih（徐敬直） is a case in point. He received many AO

commissions. Two books kept in the Hong Kong Public Record Office entitled

Government Projects and Welfare Projects, as I discovered, document the AO

commissions designed by SU Gin Djih of Hsin Yieh Architects and Associates

(Fig.IV-20).66 It is not surprising that Su received many government projects, for he

was the Founder and First President of the HKSA in 1956, and thus became highly

influential in Hong Kong’s architectural profession.

Thirdly, private clients, when developing projects such as housing, schools,

churches, hospitals, etc., normally for social welfare purpose, might receive

government assistance. In other words, the clients of these co-operative

developments are made up of both the government and co-operative private

organizations. In the post-war period, such co-operative ventures took place

particularly in housing development due to the serious shortage of living

accommodation caused by the huge Mainland immigrant population. For example,

the Hong Kong Housing Society, an independent voluntary agency, was incorporated

in 1951 to provide homes for middle-income families. An initial loan of two and a

half million HK dollars was made by the government to the society and sites were

provided at one-third the market value. Apart from the society, there were similar co-

65
The other designer was Ian Campbell; see The Builder, Vol.1965, No.10, p.49.
66
(Su), Government Projects, PRO File No. (BOOK 725.1 GOV); (Su), Welfare Projects, PRO File No.
(BOOK 362 WEL)

191
operative housing agencies formed in the early 1950s, such as the Hong Kong Model

Housing Society and the Hong Kong Economic Housing Society, the Hong Kong

Home Building Society.67

Many housing schemes developed by these Societies were also awarded to private

AA, including the migrant architects. For example, the Hong Kong Housing

Society’s estates designed by the migrant architects included the Yue Kwong Estate in

Aberdeen by YUEN Tat-Cho（阮达祖）in 1957, 68 the Kwun Lung Lau Estate in

Kennedy Town in 1964, 69 and the Ming Wah Estate at Shau Kei Wan in 1966, 70 both

designed by SZETO Wai (司徒惠) (Fig.IV-21). It is worth noting that Yuen was one

of the Foundation Members of the HKSA in 1956, and Szeto was the President in

1960. It seems that it was the most prominent migrant architects such as Yuen, Szeto

and Su, who were directly employed by the government and its co-operative societies

to design public works.

Another kind of co-operative housing was developed by the Co-operative

Building Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Ordinance.71 Members

of the Societies were government employees who joined together to build houses for

themselves with government assistance. The assistance was two-fold, a loan to cover

the cost of construction repayable in twenty years at three and a half percent interest,

and the granting of land at half the upset price. Up to the end of July 1957, a total of

sixty-nine Co-operative Building Societies were approved. 72 Upon approval, the

Societies would appoint private AA to prepare and submit plans for the housing

67
Hong Kong Annual Report, 1954, p.130
68
“One Simple Idea Achieves High Standard Living in Aberdeen Low Cost Housing Project”, The
Builder, Vol.18, No.1, pp.90-94
69
“Low Cost Housing at Kennedy Town”, in ibid., Vol.1968, No.4, p.39-44
70
“Society’s Largest Estate Complete[d]”, in ibid., Vol.1966, No.3, p.34
71
The Co-operative Societies Ordinance was originally enacted as Ordinance No. 43 of 1947.
72
The Builder, Vol.12, No.6, pp.33-34

192
projects on their behalf. This research discovered that at least six migrant architects

designed for Co-operative Building Societies, which were published in The Builder,

as shown in Fig.IV-22. In these cases, the clients of the migrant architects were

governmental employees, both Chinese and non-Chinese. 73

Education was another important need of the Mainland immigrant population in

the immediate post-war years. The government thus provided assistance to those

private organizations or individuals, who endeavored to alleviate the situation by

erecting schools. The government’s assistance was in the form of grants of money,

grants of land at low prices or sometimes free of charge, loans at very low rates of

interest, and advice on school operation by the Education Department. Fig.IV-23~24

present the government-in-aid school projects which were designed by the migrant

architects. In these cases, most of the private charitable organizations were churches,

including the Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Salesian Fathers, etc.

Others were for Buddhist temples, individuals, villages, as well as societies such as

the Hong Kong Building Contractors' Association, the Confucian Academy, and the

Old Boy's Association.

It is also worth noting that churches, hospitals, and other social welfare projects

received similar government assistance (see Fig.IV-25). Sometimes, this assistance

was given on condition that those projects should provide an educational function.

For example, the six cases in Fig.IV-24 are developments of both churches and

schools. Among these, the Maryknoll Secondary School by SZETO Wai (司徒惠)

and the Lutheran School and Church by WONG Ting Ki ( 王 定 基 ) received

73
There were still other types of co-operative housing in Hong Kong, such as the provision of homes
for fishermen (International Co-operative Alliance. Housing Committee., 1980; Jia & Ren, 2007). For
example, the CARE Village Better Living Co-op Society, Ltd. was organized and financed by private
welfare organizations with the help of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department and District Officers in
the 1960s. The fishermen’s villages developed by the Society were design by private architects. For the
designs see The Builder, Vol.1966, No.1, pp.49-51.

193
government assistance only for the parts concerned with school development.

Moreover, in the case of the North Point Methodist Church by Robert FAN Wen Zhao

（范文照）, the government’s cheap site was not to be approved unless the church

promised to run a primary school.74

The above mentioned three kinds of development are government-awarded or

government-assisted on one hand, and private-architect-designed or private-client-

initiated on the other. They cannot be simply categorized into either the public or the

private sector.75 Moreover, they reveal the expansion of the migrant architects’ client

relations in Hong Kong from the private to the public sector, and vice versa.

Therefore, these developments are worth emphasizing and categorizing into the

overlapping sector. Furthermore, the latter two kinds of development in the

overlapping sector, that is the co-operative social welfare public works, should be

given further attention. Although the government and the co-operative private

organizations were their direct clients, the majority of the users were the low income

Mainland refugees. In other words, it was the influx of the huge number of Mainland

refugees around 1949 that generated the demand for more public works, and thus

provided more opportunities for the migrant architects. How did these public works,

particularly those co-operative projects designed by the migrant architects serve the

lower income Mainland refugees? As members of the Mainland immigrants

themselves, what particular contributions did the migrant architects make in designing

these projects? These questions are worthy of examination.

74
For more on the case of the North Point Methodist Church, see the following Section Five.
75
The Hong Kong government did not have a clear division between the public and private sectors
regarding these projects particularly in the post-war period. For example, in the 1954 Annual Report,
the private-client-initiated public works were listed under “Private Housing”. However, at present,
these projects are under direct governmental control by the Subvented Projects Division of the
Architectural Service Department, which is developed from the former AO, and responsible for
government subvented, joint-venture and entrusted projects. See the web page of the Architectural
Service Department at http://www.archsd.gov.hk/archsd_home01.asp?Path_Lev1=2

194
Fig.IV-19 The Overlapped Sector I: WONG Hong-Yuen（黄匡原）as Private AA

195
Fig.IV-20 The Overlapped Sector II: AO Commissions by G D Su

196
Fig.IV-21 The Overlapped Sector III: Public Housing

197
Fig.IV-22 The Overlapped Sector IV: Co-operative Housing

198
Fig.IV-23 The Overlapped Sector V: Co-operative Schools by Migrant Architects

199
Fig.IV-24 The Overlapped Sector VI: Co-operative Schools & Churches by Migrant Architects

200
Fig.IV-25 The Overlapped Sector VII: Other Co-operative Projects by Migrant Architects

201
 In conclusion, the client relations of the migrant architects in Hong Kong can be

categorized into three sectors: the public, the private, and those that overlap these two

categories. In the public sector, three migrant architects worked as AO professionals,

serving mainly governmental client authorities. In the private sector, most migrant

architects as AA worked for the private developers, including the upper strata of

Mainland entrepreneurs, as I hypothesize. In the overlapping sector the three migrant

architects as AO professionals also registered as AA and received private

commissions and conversely, many migrant architects as private AA engaged in

public works. Some of these were prominent enough to directly receive governmental

awarded projects. Others designed co-operative social welfare projects developed by

private charitable organizations with governmental assistance for the lower income

Mainland refugees.

Based on the above client study, questions regarding two aspects have been raised:

1) In the private sector, did the migrant architects resume their former client

relations, and design for the upper strata of Mainland entrepreneurs?

2) In the overlapping sector, how did the public works, particularly those co-

operative projects, designed by the migrant architects serve the lower income

sector of Mainland refugees?

The above two aspects will be separately examined in the following two sections

“Designing for Mainland Entrepreneurs” and “Building for Mainland Refugees”.

202
 4 Designing for Mainland Entrepreneurs

As found in the last section, in the private sector, the building types that the

migrant architects designed, such as textile factories, banks, composite buildings,

residences, theatres, etc., are closely aligned with the sections of the economy that the

Shanghai entrepreneurs engaged in. Based on the findings, further effort should be

made to discover particular client connections between the migrant architects and the

upper echelon of the Mainland immigrants. First of all, interviewing migrant

architects or their relatives is found to be the most efficient way in which to discover

their former client relations with Mainland background.

Stanley KWOK Tun-Li (郭敦礼）, a migrant architect, was elected a Foundation

Member of the HKSA in 1956 and then President in 1966. According to my telephone

interviews with Kwok,76 he did not know any clients when he arrived in Hong Kong

at the end of 1948, but knew many by the time he left for Canada in 1967. That is to

say, all of his client relations were newly developed in Hong Kong, rather than having

been previous contacts in Mainland China. In fact, he is among the youngest of the

generation of migrant architects. When he arrived in Hong Kong, he had just

graduated from the Department of Architecture at the St. John’s University in

Shanghai, and was introduced to Eric Cumine because of the academic ties of the

department. 77 He began his client network building first through Cumine’s

connections and gradually achieved stable local client relations of his own during the

two decades from 1948 to 1967. 78

76
See footnote 29 above.
77
For more on the discussions on academic ties, see the previous Section Two, Sub-section One of this
chapter.
78
Kwok’s stable client relations in Hong Kong even extended overseas, when he left for Canada in
1967. For example, he continues his association with the Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd., the leading
Hong Kong Property Company up to the present.

203
 When responding to my question: “What was the main problem or difficulty that

you or other migrant architects encountered when practicing in post-war Hong Kong?

Was it strict economic requirements, client relations, different building technology or

government controls from those in Mainland China, political suppression, or racial

problems, etc.?”79 His answer emphasizes the significance of client relations. “First

and foremost were client relations. Second was dialect. You had to speak Cantonese

or Shanghai Hua to communicate with your clients. After all, it was again related to

the client issue. As well, you had to use English which was the official language. For

me, I had no language problem, because my native place is Guangdong Province, and

I once stayed in Shanghai and was taught in English at the St. John’s University when

studying architecture. Therefore, I am able to speak Cantonese, Shanghai Hua, and

English fluently.”80

Kwok’s answer also sheds light on how he benefited from his Mainland

background. Although he did not have as much practical experience in pre-1949

Mainland China as the elder generations of the migrant architects had, his Cantonese

and Shanghainese background and his educational background at the St. John’s

University enabled him, as a talented and fresh architectural graduate, to successfully

establish himself in post-war Hong Kong. As mentioned in Chapter One, about sixty-

one percent of the migrant architects had Cantonese background, and about forty-six

percent originally came from Shanghai, or once practiced or studied in Shanghai. In

79
See footnote 29 above.
80
My telephone interviews were conducted in Mandarin. They prove that Kwok’s Mandarin is also
very good. Here, Kwok’s answer is my translation from Chinese to English. His original words are “主
要是业主问题。然后是语言问题，你要会讲粤语和上海话，才可以和业主交流，所以说到底还
是业主问题。你还要会英语，因为这是官方使用的语言。我们在圣约翰都是用英语教课，所以
都不成问题。另外，我籍贯广东中山，也在上海学习过，所以粤语和上海话都会说。”

204
other words, Mainland-background advantages acknowledged by Kwok may also

have been shared by the majority of the migrant architects.

Robert FAN Zheng（范政）is among the youngest generation of the migrant

architects, and has a similar Mainland background to that of Kwok, with Cantonese

ancestry, having been born in Shanghai, and trained at the St. John’s University.

Moreover, his father, Robert FAN Wen Zhao（范文照）was a member of the older

generation of migrant architects, therefore, my written interviews with Fan Zheng

reveal valuable facts about the older generation.

When asked about former clients of his father, Fan gave two examples:81 Firstly,

“the Hong Kong Spinners Ltd. Founder, the late Mr. T.Y. Wong’s father, was my

father’s client in Shanghai before 1949. They started the Hong Kong factory months

before the Nationalist Government moved to Taiwan… [My father designed] the

company’s buildings at Cheung Sha Wan Road, including [the] spinning factory,

workers dormitory, dining hall, recreation area, basket ball, volley ball and playing

field, comprising three or four city blocks.” Secondly, “the Sincere Co. Group owned

by the Ma family were old clients from Shanghai.” Fan also provided the original

image of the twenty-seven-storey Sincere Company Office Complex in Central

designed by his father in 1963.82 (Fig.IV-10)

The Hong Kong Spinners Ltd. is typical of the Shanghai spinners, who should be

considered as a major group within the upper strata of the Mainland immigrants.

According to Wong (1988, pp.8-15), after migrating to Hong Kong in the late 1940s,

the Shanghai spinners dominated the cotton spinning industry which was one of the

81
See footnote 24 above.
82
The office building was under redevelopment when this research discovered it. After completion, its
structure remains, but the exterior was largely changed. The image provided by FAN Zheng with his
letter to me on April 15th, 2005 presents the original design.

205
cornerstones of Hong Kong’s economy. They controlled all but one of the mills in the

1950s, and maintained eighty-nine percent of mill ownership in the 1960s.

Apparently, the migrant architects with a Shanghai background, particularly those

once designed for them in Shanghai, would be the best choice for the influential

Shanghai spinners to design their new plants in Hong Kong.

The Sincere Co. represents large commercial organizations as another group of

the upper strata of the Mainland immigrants. Although the first headquarters of the

company was founded in Hong Kong in 1900 by Australian overseas Chinese, the Ma

family (马氏家族), its Shanghai branch, opened in 1916, gradually developed into

one of the top four department stores in Shanghai, as well as in China (Feng, 1997,

p.218). It was not until the late 1940s that the Shanghai branch had to move to Hong

Kong. In that sense the company was in the same position as the Shanghai spinners,

and was likely to want to co-operate with the Shanghai-based migrant architects.

LUKE Him-sau （ 陆 谦 受 ) was one of the older generations of the migrant

architects. Although he passed away in 1991, the author fortunately managed to

contact Luke’s descendants in Hong Kong. With their help, invaluable historical

materials about Luke’s professional career have been discovered, including a list of

clients. 83 The study of the list shows that Luke also designed for the Shanghai

spinners, for example, the South Sea Textile Co. Ltd. He prepared plans for the

company’s new buildings at Tsuen Wan, including a memorial hall, welfare building,

office, club house, school and dormitory, etc. 84 (Fig.IV-8) The list also provides new

information about another group within the upper strata of Mainland immigrants, the

83
The author wrote a conference paper to record two important interviews with the Luke family, Luk
Shing Chark (陆承泽), the middle son, and Luk Men-Chong (陆曼庄) the grand-daughter, and the
mentioned significant discoveries made by them. See Wang (2007).
84
The materials discovered by the Luke family include more than 2,400 drawings among which are the
plans for the South Sea Textile Co. Ltd.

206
large Shanghai contracting companies which were the migrant architects’ former

clients in Shanghai, and their important clients in Hong Kong.

While the Chinese architects broke through Western domination in 1930s

Shanghai, as mentioned in the background review of the profession in the Mainland, it

was the modern Chinese contractors who dominated Shanghai’s building contracting

activities since the 1920s. In 1935, there were a total of 2,763 Chinese contracting

firms registered in Shanghai.85 All the thirty-three high-rise buildings (higher than ten

storeys) erected in 1920s and 1930s Shanghai were constructed by Chinese

contractors (He, 1991). Their business even extended to other big modern Chinese

cities such as Beijing, Tianjin, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuhan, Chongqing,

Chengdu, and Kunming.86 In the 1949 migration, many large Shanghai contracting

companies relocated to Hong Kong.87 Among these was Paul Y. TSO (车炳荣) of

the Paul Y Construction who was one of Luke’s important clients.

Tso had been a lawyer in Shanghai. He entered the building business after

marrying the daughter of TAO Gui Lin ( 陶 桂 林 ), the Founder of Tao Fu Ji

Construction Co. (陶馥记营造厂), one of the top five contracting companies in

Shanghai. The Bank of China Building on the Bund was designed by Luke, and

constructed by Tao Fu Ji in the early 1930s. At that time, Tso was the project

manager on behalf of the contracting company, and must have built up a good

relationship with Luke during this collaboration. With successful experience in

85
See “From Shanghai’s International Settlement to observe the establishment of architectural
legislation in modern China”, in (Lai, 2007)
86
Ibid.
87
According to Cody’s interview with one Shanghai contractor, John Lok, by the early 1950s, at least
six large Shanghai contracting companies practiced in Hong Kong. There were Hsin Heng, Hsin
Chong, Sun Fook Kee, Ngo Kee, Paul Y Construction, and Yaik Sang Construction. (Cody, 2002)

207
building the Bank of China as well as other important projects in Shanghai,88 Tso

branched out alone and founded the Paul Y. Construction in 1945. After moving to

Hong Kong in 1950, the Paul Y. Construction became the top contracting company in

the 1960s. Tso himself was elected president of the International Federation of Asian

and Western Pacific Contractors’ Association, president of the Hong Kong Society of

Builders, and vice-president of the Hong Kong Contractors’ Association in 1964.89

Apart from his major construction business, Tso also opened branch enterprises such

as land investment and tobacco companies, and thus claimed to be an industrialist.90

His status as an industrialist could be also reinforced by the fact that his son and

daughter both married the members of the Rong family, the most influential Shanghai

spinner (S. L. Wong, 1988, p.40).

Therefore, it is not surprising that Tso became Luke’s important client in Hong

Kong by developing large real estate projects. For example, the Repulse Bay Tower

and Mansions, was developed and built by Tso and designed by Luke in 1963. Tso

also co-operated with other migrant architects in construction works. He built the

Man Yee Building designed (1957) by CHU Pin（朱彬）, the Shell House (1957) by

Stanley Kwok Tun-Li (郭敦礼), the Woodland Heights (1963) by LEE Wei Kwong

(李为光), and the Bank of Canton Building (1968) by SZETO Wai (司徒惠). (Fig.IV-

9, 10, 15)

Apart from interviews, other highly relevant studies on groups of the upper strata

of the Mainland immigrants in the 1949 migration give important clues to the possible

former clients of the migrant architects. For example, Wong (1988) studies the

Shanghai spinners who migrated to Hong Kong in the late 1940s. When

88
For example, he built the Majestic Theater design by Robert Fan Wen Zhao in 1942. For more on
the design, see Chapter Five, Section Four, Sub-section One.
89
The Builder, Vol. 1965, No.5, p.67
90
Ibid.

208
crosschecking the spinners mentioned in Wong’s study with the owners of the

projects designed by the migrant architects, more collaboration could be found

between the spinners and the architects. For example, the Nanyang Cotton Mill Ltd.

was an enterprise set up by members of the aforementioned Rong family in Hong

Kong.91 When the mill moved from Ma Tau Kok to the new industrial town Kwun

Tong in 1959 because of increasing expansion, it invited SU Gin Djih（徐敬直) to

design its new plants, and WONG Fait-fone（黄培芬) its new staff quarters.92 The

Pao Hsing Cotton Mill was the only non-Shanghainese mill relocated to Hong Kong

from Sichuan Province.93 Its new plant was designed by SU Gin Djih（徐敬直) and

WU Chi-Koei (吴继轨) of Hsin Yieh Architects & Associates.94

Another relevant study concerns Chinese Bankers coming to Hong Kong around

1949 carried out by Lee (2002). The study focuses on one individual Shanghai

banker, CHEN Guangfu (陈光甫), who founded the Shanghai Commercial & Savings

Bank in 1915. The bank had its Hong Kong branch in 1934, mainly dealing with the

exchange business between Hong Kong, Shanghai and London. After moving to

Hong Kong in 1949, Chen reorganized the bank as an independent company with a

new registration under Hong Kong Company Law, in order to seek the protection of

the local government. The newly organized bank was named the Shanghai

Commercial Bank.95 On the other hand, this research discovers that SU Gin Djih（徐

敬直) designed a new warehouse for the Shanghai Commercial & Saving Bank Ltd.

in 1950, 96 and Stanley KWOK Tun-Li（郭敦礼）prepared the plans for the new

premises of the Shanghai Commercial Bank.

91
(S. L. Wong, 1988), p.127
92
The Builder, Vol.14, No.2, pp.39, 44.
93
(S. L. Wong, 1988), pp. 37, 129
94
The Builder, Vol.8, No.5, back cover.
95
(Lee, 2002), pp.348, 354
96
The Builder, Vol.8, No.7,p.39.

209
 The study of Hong Kong Chinese Capitalists by Feng (1997) draws attention to

the Shanghai branches of large Cantonese-based financial or commercial

organizations such as the Bank of East Asia, and the Wing On Group. Similar to the

aforementioned Sincere Co., the Shanghai branches could be considered members of

the upper strata of Mainland immigrants. The Bank of East Asia was founded by

CHOW Shouson (周寿臣), KAN Tung-po (简东浦), FUNG Ping Shan (冯平山), etc.,

in 1919, and its Shanghai branch that opened in the following year became one of the

top four foreign banks in Shanghai.97 Like the Sincere Co., the Wing On Co. was

founded by Australian overseas Chinese, the Kwok family (郭氏家族) in Hong Kong

in 1907. Its Shanghai branch was established in 1917 and became one of the top four

department stores in Shanghai.98 In the late 1940s, the Shanghai branches joined the

1949 migration and returned to Hong Kong. Given these facts, this research

maintains that CHU Pin （朱彬）designed the Bank of East Asia Mongkok Building

in 1962,99 and SU Gin Djih（徐敬直) designed the Wing On Life Building at Central

in 1955, and the Wing On Building Hotel Fortuna in Kowloon in 1964.100

Two points can be further noted about the above findings through crosschecking

with highly relevant studies. Firstly, the findings highlight “bankers” as another

group of the upper strata of Mainland immigrants, as shown in the cases of the

Shanghai Commercial & Saving Bank Ltd. and the Shanghai branch of the Bank of

East Asia. Secondly, unlike discoveries obtained by interviews, the findings through

crosschecking provided only the evidence concerning the client-architect relations in

post-1949 Hong Kong, rather than those in pre-1949 Mainland China. In other words,

it is necessary to further confirm whether the clients of the migrant architects’ Hong

97
(Feng, 1997), p.220
98
The other 3 were the Sincere Co., the Sun Sun Co. Ltd., and the Da Sun Co. Ltd., all founded by
Australian overseas Chinese in Hong Kong. In ibid. p.218
99
The Builder, Vol.17, No.3,p.58
100
Ibid., Vol.12, No.2, pp.17-20; Vol.18, No.5, pp.172.

210
Kong practices were their old clients in Shanghai. However, there should be no

dispute that the Shanghai spinners, bankers, as well as the Shanghai branches of Hong

Kong-based organizations, would have preferred to co-operate with those architects

they had known in Shanghai. This can be proven by the fact that CHOW Shouson (周

寿臣), one of the founders of the Bank of East Asia, acted as local resident vouching

for the identity of Chu, who applied for the registration of Hong Kong Authorized

Architects in 1949. It appears that the client Chow and the architect Chu had known

each other long before the Mongkok bank building was designed.

Besides interviews and immigrants’ studies, a third method, as I found, may also

help to trace the advantages of the Mainland background that the migrant architects

enjoyed when practicing in Hong Kong. The architectural reports on the projects

designed by the migrant architects, particularly those published by The Builder,

sometimes introduce the Mainland background of the architects. For example, in the

report of “The Hoover Theatre” by The Builder (1953), the architect’s Mainland

background is stressed as “Mr. Robert Fan, with twelve modern theatres in North

China to his credit, is responsible for the designing and supervision of the

building…”101 According to (Lai et al., 2006), Fan had designed at least six theatres

in Shanghai before 1949. Those still existing include the Nanking Theatre (1928) and

the Majesty Theatre (1941). The former originally situated near to today’s People’s

Square, the central district of the main urban area. The Shanghai government decided

to preserve the theatre because of its high acoustic qualities and architectural design,

as well as its historical value, by relocating it during the 2003 urban redevelopment.

The whole structure was lifted and moved to the southeast corner of the Square, sixty-

six meters away from its original site. After relocation, the theatre currently serves as

the Shanghai Concert Hall. This case gives credence to the report introducing Fan’s

fame in theatre design in Mainland China.

101
Ibid., Vol.10, No.2, pp.23-24

211
 It is also true that with such a high reputation, Fan received several theatre or

cinema commissions in Hong Kong. The design of the Hoover Theatre in 1953 was

different not only from Fan’s early designs in Shanghai, but also contemporary

theatres in Hong Kong, which were usually in the form of independent low-rise

buildings. Instead, the Hoover was a mixed-use development, incorporating a twelve-

storey block of apartments and shops. It could be regarded as the earliest case of

mixed-use theatre in Hong Kong, later followed by other architects, 102 and has

become the usual mode of development for theatre or cinema.103 The Hoover was

demolished in the 1980s because it was located in Causeway Bay, one of the busiest

districts. Fortunately, another mix-used theatre, the Silver Theatre situated at the

civic centre of the industrial district Kwun Tong designed by Fan in 1964, is still in

use. In addition to the theatre, the five-storey building also contains a bank, a

restaurant, and offices. (Fig. II-18)

In conclusion, through interviewing the migrant architects or their relatives,

crosschecking with Mainland immigrants studies, and reviewing architectural reports,

this research finds that the migrant architects co-operated with the upper strata of

Mainland immigrants in post-war Hong Kong, such as the Shanghai spinners, bankers,

contractors, as well as with the Shanghai branches of some large Hong Kong-based

financial or commercial organizations. Some of them were the architects’ old clients

in Mainland China. In addition, the migrant architects used the advantages of their

Mainland background including language skills and former reputations to build new

client relations.

102
Other migrant architects also followed this trend, for example the new Queen’s Theatre (1961) by
Chu Pin（朱彬）, new Star Theatre (1962) by CHENG Chung Chow (郑颂周), the new London
Theatre (1962) and new King’s Theatre (1965) byIU Po Chiu (姚保照), and Theatre Royal (1959) by
Hsin Yieh. All of the above theatres were contained in tower complexes. (Fig.IV-18 )
103
Lai Tung Yiu Stan: “Cinema”, in (Chan & Hong Kong Institute of Architects., 2006), pp. 170-174.

212
 5 Building for Mainland Refugees

Mainland refugees were not the direct clients of the migrant architects, but the

users of public works in the overlapping sector developed by both the government and

co-operative private organizations, and awarded to the migrant architects. However,

it was the coming of millions of Mainland refugees that generated great demand for

more public works, and thus provided more work opportunities for the migrant

architects. In this sense, the migrant architects not only designed for Mainland

entrepreneurs, but also for lower income Mainland refugees. Moreover, the migrant

architects themselves were members of the 1949 migration, and may have

experienced a common immigrant mentality.104 With an understanding of the needs

of the Mainland immigrants, it can be argued that the migrant architects would make

particular contributions to the Mainland refugees through their designing of public

works. This section will examine four types of public works, that is, public housing,

schools, churches, and welfare centres. One typical case will be selected for each

type from those projects designed by the migrant architects. The focus will be the

cases’ Mainland background and the architects’ contributions to the users through

their engineering or architectural expertise.

First of all, the greatest demand caused by the influx of Mainland refugees was for

housing. As mentioned earlier in the study of the overlapping sector, large

government-financed housing schemes were awarded to private AA including migrant

104
According to Tsang (2004), pp.180-183, the bulk of the adult Mainland immigrants had experiences
of the brutal power struggle between the KMT and CCP, and preferred not to get involved in what they
saw as politics. It was in the 1960s that more and more of the locally educated post-war generation
came to see Hong Kong as their home and to have the sense of Hong Kong identity. Some migrant
architects left Hong Kong for overseas countries after the 1967 social disturbances influenced by the
Cultural Revolution on the Mainland, including members from both the older and younger generations
such as LUKE Him-sau（陆谦受） and Stanley KWOK Tun-Li（郭敦礼）.

213
architects, by the Housing Authority or other co-operative housing agencies.105 For

example, the Kwun Lung Lau Estate in Kennedy Town was awarded to SZETO Wai

(司徒惠) in 1964 by the Hong Kong Housing Society, the government-assisted non-

profit housing agency. 106 In fact, the Kwun Lung Lau Estate was not used

specifically by Mainland refugees, but by the lower income bracket of society in

general, to which most Mainland refugees belonged. However, the case is selected

because the architectural features of Szeto’s design responded to the economic and

social needs of the lower income group in particular.

Economically, the design’s layout method, high degree of standardization, and

off-the-form concrete finish all aimed for lower cost. Firstly, the site was a very steep

slope of one to two covering about five and a half acres. In order to avoid excessive

excavation and retaining walls, the layout was seven linked blocks with five following

the existing contours and two smaller blocks across the contours. Secondly, although

the variation of seven different unit sizes was achieved, the basic provision of kitchen,

toilet and balcony were kept standard. As a result, a high degree of standardization

was achieved. Thirdly, the concrete off-the-formwork was left exposed without finish

both externally and internally. The exterior concrete surfaces were fair-faced, apart

from the panels of the toilets which were treated with mineral chip finish with

different colors for each block. The interior walls of lobbies and play-spaces were

also unfinished concrete. Walls to the corridors were of clear finished brickwork

interrupted by the exposed structural wall ends and by full height entrance doors of

different colors. Although the off-the-form concrete finishes themselves could not

reduce much cost, it is believed that because of the minimal maintenance that is the

105
Although private clients also developed large housing estates, most of them did so for commercial
purposes, and for higher income levels of society, rather than for the lower income level or the refugee
population.
106
The Builder, Vol.1968, No.4, pp.38-44

214
characteristics of the off-the-form finishes, there are likely to be significant savings in

cost during the life of the building107.

Socially, the idea of community was taken as a basic element in the design. The

arrangement of six central lifts provided spacious two-storey-high lobbies for leisure

activities, even accommodating badminton courts. Moreover, the whole area of the

roof was used for community buildings. Small structures with shell concrete covers

accommodated a community centre with a hall and stage, classroom, committee room

and kitchen, as well as a library, kindergarten, and public toilets. Children’s play

equipment was provided on the roof of one block and a ball court and flood-lit

basketball court on others. A soft-drink stall with a storeroom was located in the

structure for the lift machines. All the open spaces in the lobbies and on the roof were

shared by the Estate residents, through which the architect’s intentions for social

benefit were largely achieved. This would be important given the fact that the lack of

basic open spaces in large-size resettlement estates had become one of the main

reasons for social unrest in the 1960s (Goodstadt, 1969) (Fig. IV-26).

As mentioned earlier in Chapter Three, Section Five, Szeto, an engineering-based

architect, claimed that the internationally known Master architects with their intimate

knowledge of engineering principles were able to design master pieces of architecture

with structural perfection, just as Le Corbusier did in “Unite d’Habitation” and the

new buildings at Chandigarh, India. The unfinished concrete treatment and the roof

community facilities in Kwun Lung Lau Estate give clues to the influence of “Unite

d’Habitation”.

Following housing, there was serious demand for schools caused by the arrival of

a large number of young people among the Mainland immigrants. In order to

107
Ibid., Vol.1970, No.6, pp.23-26

215
alleviate the situation, charitable organizations, mostly churches, erected schools

probably with governmental assistance. The study of the overlapped sector in the

previous Section Three, Subsection Three provides many examples of the

government-aided school projects designed by the migrant architects. Among them,

the CUHK as well as its original foundation colleges of Chung Chi and New Asian

College should be highlighted. Their new college buildings involved great effort by

the migrant architects. Moreover, their establishments reveal strong Mainland

backgrounds.

As a result of the communist takeover, Christian universities in Mainland China

were shut down. After taking refugee in Hong Kong, many unemployed professors

and lecturers from Chinese universities wanted to restore the scholastic pattern of

their lives. A large number of young students mostly secondary school graduates,

were anxious to continue their education in the medium of Chinese. However, by

then there was only one university in the Colony, the HKU with English as its

medium of instruction. To meet this demand, the Chung Chi College and the New

Asian College, two post-secondary institutions, were established.

The New Asian College was founded in September 1949 by CH'IEN Mu (钱穆)108

and several other refugee scholars from Mainland China. With limited financial

resources, the refugee professors and students encountered very difficult conditions,

holding classes in rented tenement rooms without proper equipment or recognition by

the Hong Kong Government or the HKU. It was not until 1956 that the New Asian

College moved to its new premises in Farm Road, Kowloon. The new buildings were

funded by the Yale-in-China Association, and designed by SU Gin Djih（徐敬直),

comprising a five-storey block of classrooms and dormitories, a three-storey block of

108
CH’IEN Mu (钱穆, 1895-1990), a leading Chinese historian in the Republican era, used to be
professor at the universities of Beijing and Tsinghua. He produced more than sixty publications. He
retired from the New Asian College in 1964, and moved to Taiwan in 1966.

216
offices and library, and a two-storey circular amphitheatre.109 As the focus of the

design, the circular amphitheatre had an overall diameter of eighteen meters, and was

supported on columns, leaving the ground floor to be a covered playground section of

the courtyard (Fig.IV-27).

The Chung Chi College, on the other hand, was founded in 1951 by

representatives of Protestant churches in Hong Kong with a stronger religious

background. Upon establishment, it did not have permanent premises, and had to

conduct evening classes in borrowed classrooms in St. Paul’s Co-education School,

and day classes in St. John’s Cathedral Hall. With the majority of its staff and

students Mainland refugees, the College aimed to re-embody the Christian influence

which previously existed in the Chinese Christian universities, and thus used Chinese

as the primary language with English as a second. The financial help from Christian

organizations in US and UK110 enabled the College to have its new buildings in 1954

on the grounds of the St. Paul’s School.111 Also designed by SU Gin Djih（徐敬直),

the five-storey new block and the three-storey existing converted block connected to

form a part of the St. Paul’s campus. The new block also made good use of the slope

site to provide a large lecture hall with a sloping floor.

When its new block inside the St. Paul’s School was nearly completed, the

College received a permanent free site, its present site, from the Government; a ten-

acre land on the hills at Ma Liu Shui Valley in the New Territories. The cost of

erecting the basic buildings on the new campus was met by contributions from more

Christian organizations in the US, UK and Canada, as well as local groups and

109
The Builder, Vol.12, No.3, pp.51-52
110
The College was founded with sponsorship from the United Board for Christian Higher Education
in Asia of the United States, The Lingnan Foundation based in New York, and Association of Christian
Universities and Colleges in Asia of London.
111
The Builder, Vol.10, No.4, pp.27; Vol.10, No.6, pp.25-26

217
individuals, including the Shanghai entrepreneurs.112 In 1956, the College moved to

the campus which was planned and designed by Robert FAN Wen Zhao（范文照）

with the following new buildings: administration office, library, multi-purpose hall,

classroom blocks, the boy’s dormitory building, Hua Lian Tang, the girl’s dormitory

building, Ying Lin Tang, the Presidents' residence, athletics building, science building,

and staff quarters A, B and C.113 Although most of the buildings were replaced by

large-size or high-rise blocks due to the rapid expansion of the College, a few remain

in use at present, including the dormitories, staff quarters, and part of the classroom

blocks. The existing structures show impressive material design features with stone

trims contrasting with horizontal plastered surfaces, and a careful consideration given

to making use of the hilly landscape. These architectural features could also be seen

in Fan’s other Hong Kong projects114 (Fig.IV-28).

In 1963, three Colleges, Chung Chi, New Asian, and United,115 all with Mainland

backgrounds joined to form the CUHK. The university was granted a 273-acre site,

including the existing Chung Chi campus, and extending over a vast hillside with

spurs and valleys. Over half of the site area (152 acres) was reserved for the

construction of the Plover Cove Water project, that is, a considerable quantity of fill

materials had to be obtained from this area for construction of the dams. SZETO Wai

112
According to Wong (1988), p.130, the Shanghai spinners founded their community associations by
supporting the Chung Chi College as well as the New Asia College.
113
For Fan’s design, see The Builder, Vol.12, No.2, pp.45-48. The author thanks Dr. Gu Daqing for
providing additional information on the design of Chung Chi campus. According to Dr. Gu (2007),
another two migrant architects were also involved in the early design phase. CHIEN Nei-jen（钱乃
仁） prepared rendering drawing of a proposed campus at another location. And, Kwan, Chu, & Yang
Architects prepared land use plan. Also, several buildings designed by Fan were later executed by
Chau & Lee Architects and Engineers appointed by the Chung Chi College in 1958.
114
For example, in the design of the North Point Methodist Church, see Chapter Five, Section Four,
Sub-section Two for more on the church design.
115
United College was founded in 1956 by the amalgamation of five private colleges, Canton Overseas,
Kwang Hsia, Wah Kiu, Wen Hua and Ping Jing. These five colleges were originally private
universities in Canton and its vicinity, and later relocated to Hong Kong.

218
(司徒惠), the chief architect for the CUHK project, who was engineering-based and

had the experience to build a dam in Guangdong himself (Fig.IV-29), collaborated

well with the Plover Cove Joint Engineers and worked out a proposal which would

mutually benefit the university and the dams. In the preliminary report (Chinese

University of Hong Kong. & Szeto, 1964), Szeto proposed to situate the three

Colleges on different-level platforms, and a headquarters complex on the middle

terrace. The cutting of spurs not only reduced the mountainous site to platforms and

terrace, but also excavated fill materials for the dams, therefore making possible a

saving of millions of dollars.116 This strategy was accepted, and set the basic layout

for the CUHK campus.

Apart from the master plan, Szeto was also responsible for the planning, designing

and construction of various new buildings for the university, including the Main

Library, Science Centre, Institute of Chinese Studies, B. Franklin Social Centre (W.

Szeto & partners Architects and Engineers., 1975). The methods of treating fair-faced

concrete, adopted by Szeto on Kwun Lung Lau Estate, have been used extensively

both externally and internally in these buildings. Besides economic considerations

and Szeto’s personal preference, this phenomenon could also be observed as a

collective trend under the influence of the British “New Brutalism”. The “New

Brutalism” stemmed from Le Corbusier’s experience with “Unite d’Habitation”, 117

and was initially proposed by the English architects, the Smithsons, and adopted by

younger architects in welfare architecture in 1950s Britain.118 In fact, the late 1960s

Hong Kong also saw the fair-faced finishes prevailing, particularly in institutional

buildings such as the CUHK campus as well as other school buildings. (Fig.IV-30)

116
The Builder, Vol.18, No.6, pp.106-107; Vol.19, No.1, pp.112-123
117
The Smithsons, the initial proponents of the “New Brutalism”, when defining the phenomenon in
1955, claimed that the two origins of the “New Brutalism” are Le Corbusier and Japanese architecture.
See “introduction”, in (Vidotto, Castán, & Thomson, 1997)
118
See “New Brutalism and the architecture of the Welfare State: England 1949-59”, in (Frampton,
1985), pp.262-268

219
 Thirdly, there was also a big demand for churches caused by the arrival of a large

number of Christians among the Mainland immigrants. Similar to Christian

universities in Mainland China, Christian churches and organizations were shut down

due to the communist takeover, and members migrated to Hong Kong to seek refuge.

Mainly because of its Mainland background,119 the case of the North Point Methodist

Church is selected as a typical example of the churches designed by the migrant

architects.

Among the 1949 Mainland immigrants from over sixteen provinces of China,

more than 3,000 were members of the Methodist Church. By then, the Hong Kong

Chinese Methodist Church had two churches in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon

respectively. They warmly welcomed the Mainland Methodists to join, but

encountered the problems of limited worship space and different dialects because

Mandarin was the primary language used by the Mainland Methodists. As a result,

the Mainland Methodists, with the assistance from the Hong Kong denomination,

founded their own church in 1953. However, without their own church buildings,

they had to worship in borrowed halls such as in school auditoria, other Methodist

churches, and even in a restaurant in North Point.

This unsettled state was brought to an end when the first church building was

ready at the end of 1953. Exactly speaking, it was not a building, but a large worship

space, about 280 square meters, re-developed from ten adjacent garages in an

apartment block’s ground floor.120 The idea of “Garage Church” (车房教会) was

proposed by Dr. Sidney Raymond ANDERSON, who was a Methodist missionary

from the US, served in Mainland China from 1915, and came to Hong Kong in 1950.

119
The materials on the history of the North Point Methodist Church and its Mainland background are
provided by Rev. LAN Sung Che（林崇智）of the Church.
120
It was the former North Point Terrace on the Cheung Hong Street.

220
He made great effort to build the church buildings of the Shanghai Moore Memorial

Church (1929), and the North Point Methodist Church (1953-1962). The architect,

who turned Dr Anderson’s idea into reality and the empty garages into the church,

was LEE Young On（李扬安）(Fig.IV-31). As mentioned in the previous Section

Two, Subsection Two, Lee himself joined the church in 1954. In fact, he had

probably known Dr. Anderson from at least the 1930s, because he married a daughter

of a Chinese Methodist pastor, and held their wedding in the Shanghai Moore

Memorial Church in 1931. Lee also designed other buildings for the church,

including the North Point Methodist Primary School, in 1958. The school was

erected to meet the government’s requirement, so that the church would be granted a

cheap site besides the “Garage Church” (Fig.IV-32).

In 1962, the second church building was finally completed on its present site, a

cheap site granted by the government, which was originally fan shaped with its small-

end frontage on Cheung Hong Street only six-meter wide, and spreading and rising

behind till its large-end of thirty-meter wide and twenty-five meters higher in level.

The architect was Robert FAN Wen Zhao（范文照）, who was a good friend of Dr.

Anderson, 121 and who had high reputation in Shanghai as the Founder and first

President of the Society of Chinese Architects (Fig.IV-33). Fan successfully

overcame site difficulties with his expertise in both engineering and architecture. His

design made good use of the site minimizing site formation work, providing a

sequence of spaces from the noisy street to the peaceful church nave, as well as

achieving a unique church frontage echoing the natural hilly landscape122 (Fig.V-21).

In addition to the above examples of public housing, schools, churches, another

two cases of welfare centres were selected as representatives of other social welfare

121
See footnote 32 above.
122
The Builder, Vol.15, No.2, pp.28-29; Vol.17, No.5, pp.68-71. For more discussion on the design of
the second church building as well as Fan’s architectural thought, see Chapter Five, Section Four.

221
projects in general, that is the War Memorial Welfare Centre on the Southorn

Playground in Wan Chai in 1950, and the Queen Elizabeth II Youth Centre on the

MacPherson Playground in Mongkok in 1953. Both were run by the Children’s

Playground Association, and designed by the migrant architects. As the earliest

welfare centres in the Colony, both were of important historical value, for they

witnessed the new beginning of Hong Kong’s social welfare programme after the war.

The War Memorial Welfare Centre was situated on the Southorn Playground, the

first playground of the Colony opened in 1934. Although seven playgrounds had

been built before the war, none of them survived the Japanese Occupation. The new

Welfare Centre was to be built on the first playground to demonstrate a revival of the

social welfare work in post-war Hong Kong. By then, the social welfare work had

been largely left to private charitable organizations, while the government did not

have specific social programme but provided funds or other assistance to private

organizations. Therefore, the Welfare Centre, financed by the War Memorial Fund

Committee, was built first as headquarters for various charitable organizations to meet

and to coordinate their individual efforts. At the same time, it served as a playground

and recreation centre, particularly for children. The Welfare Centre was sited in Wan

Chai, one of the most densely populated areas in Hong Kong, and therefore catered to

the largest possible number of children. The building of the Centre was designed by

KWAN Wing-hong (关永康), providing not luxurious but essential facilities such as a

gymnasium, washing and dressing accommodation, dining room and kitchen, reading

room, and offices123 (Fig.IV-25).

The Wan Chai Centre proved to be such a success that the experience was

repeated on Kowloon side. In 1953, the Queen Elizabeth II Youth Centre124 designed

123
The Builder, Vol.8, No.4, pp.29-30
124
Ibid., Vol.9, No.4, pp.22-23; Vol.10, No.3, pp.35-36

222
by SU Gin Djih（徐敬直) was opened in the district of Mongkok, the most densely

populated area in Kowloon. It offered similar facilities as its predecessor in Wan

Chai, together with many improvements. Apart from the bathing, dining, reading, and

headquarters facilities, it had a main stadium capable of accommodating 2,064

spectators, suitable for basketball or tennis matches. Outside the main stadium were a

covered children’s playground on the ground floor of the office block, two basketball

courts, and a full-size football pitch with stands for 1,300 spectators. The most

impressive part of the design was the stadium, using a shell roof in 100 mm thick

reinforced concrete slabs to contain the widest unsupported span in Hong Kong at that

time, more than thirty-six meters.125 The Youth Centre was a great benefit to the

people of the district from the 1950s, and is still in use at present (Fig.IV-34).

In conclusion, the lower income Mainland immigrants, who also formed the bulk

of the lower income levels of society, were anxious to improve their lives after taking

refugee in Hong Kong in the 1949 migration. They desired basic accommodation;

their young people to continue education in the medium of Chinese; their Christian

believers to worship in their own dialects and churches and their children to have a

safe playground. Their basic needs generated great demand for public works to be

met first by private charitable organizations, and then by the government’s social

welfare programme, particularly in public housing. Many of the public works such as

public housing, schools, churches, and welfare centres, were designed by the migrant

architects. As members of the Mainland immigrants themselves, the migrant

architects understood the needs of the immigrants, and had closer relations to those

charitable organizations with Mainland backgrounds so they were able to fulfill the

particular needs of each refugee group.

125
According to the construction drawings kept in B.D., file no. 2/4293/52

223
224
225
226
 6 Summary

This chapter begins with a review of the political, economic and social conditions

as well as related building activities in post-war Hong Kong. It is found that the

arrival of millions of Mainland immigrants, both entrepreneurs and lower income

refugees, provided new impetus for post-war urban development. Based on the

review, and further professional networks and client relations studies, it is found that

the migrant architects successfully re-established their practices through building a

wider ranging professional network, and developing client relations in the public,

private, and overlapping sectors. During this process, their former professional

partnerships were largely preserved and their old client relations with Mainland

background were resumed. In the private sector, they continued to co-operate with

their old clients such as the Shanghai spinners, bankers, contractors, as well as the

Shanghai branches of Cantonese commercial companies, who were the upper level of

Mainland entrepreneurs. Moreover, in the overlapped sector, they were awarded

public works by the government and private charitable organizations to meet the great

demand generated by the influx of millions of lower income Mainland refugees.

As a result, the private development they engaged in such as textile factories,

banks, hotels, composite buildings, apartments, villas, theatres etc. met the

requirements of the Mainland entrepreneurs, as well as other private clients, and

supplied the needs of Hong Kong’s economic transformation and growth. The public

works they became involved in such as public housing, schools, churches, welfare

centres, hospitals, etc., served the Mainland refugees, as well as other lower income

people, and fulfilled the government’s social programme reforms. All this proves that

the migrant architects made great contributions to post-war Hong Kong’s urban

development through designing large-quantity and high-quality projects of various

types.

227
 Chapter Five: Nation-State, Region, or City

Chapter Five studies whether the 1949 migration changed the migrant architects’

sense of Chinese identity. They had left Mainland China, a strongly centralized state

which experienced a rapid identity transformation from culturalism to nationalism (民

族主义) from the late nineteenth century (Levenson, 1958), and had arrived in Hong

Kong, a British colony on China’s geographical periphery which became a small

“international” stronghold in the post-war decades (Muramatsu, Mukai, & Takenaka,

1997, pp.158-160).

On one hand, as mentioned in the introduction, the “Chinese style” of architecture

( 中 国 式 建 筑 ) had been accepted as a particular architectural expression of the

Chinese nationalistic identity since the 1920s. And, the migrant architects’ attitudes

towards the “Chinese style” made up an important part of their Chinese identity in

architecture. Therefore, as a background, the first section reviews the history of

making the “Chinese style” in architecture (Subsection One), and draws conclusions

regarding typical attitudes towards the “Chinese style” held by the migrant architects

and their contemporaries (Subsection Two).

On the other hand, the post-war political situation in Hong Kong forced both the

government and most Mainland immigrants considered it dangerous to seek obvious

political identification.1 As a result, the “Chinese style” as a mainstream expression

of Chinese nationalism was not likely to be welcomed by politically-sensitive

governmental and private clients. Instead, the “international style”, with its basis of

1
As shown in Chapter Four, Section One, the Hong Kong government took a policy of neutrality in
Chinese politics between the Great Powers, and to deliberately ignore the effects of the Cold War. And,
as mentioned in the introduction, the bulk of adult Mainland immigrants had experienced the brutal
power struggles between the KMT and CCP, and preferred not to get involved in what they perceived
as politics.

228
function rather than ideology, had been widely accepted by Hong Kong clients as a

safe and economical way of architectural expression. Therefore, the following

sections (Sections Two to Six) investigate how Hong Kong’s post-war environment

influenced individual migrant architects’ attitudes towards the “Chinese style” and

Chinese nationalism. Five migrant architects are chosen for case studies. All had

designed “Chinese style” in architecture, and each held typical attitudes towards the

style. By comparing their projects in pre-1949 Mainland China and post-1949 Hong

Kong, or comparing them with their contemporaries who stayed in Mainland China

after 1949, the case studies try to identify the changes in their attitudes, which may

indicate new perspectives of Chinese identity in architecture apart from those linked

to nationalism.

1 Nationalism and the “Chinese Style” in Architecture

“Nationalism”, according to Duara (1993), is a relational identity, “a relationship

between a constantly changing Self and Other” (p. 9). It was the war threat from the

“others”, or Western powers, that awakened Chinese people’s self-awareness in the

late Qing dynasty. Reforms were thus launched to seek change by the Qing

government and Chinese intellectuals, including the Foreign Affairs Movement (洋务

运动)2 from 1860, the 100 Day Reform of 1898 (戊戌变法), and the New Policy

Movement (新政运动) from 1902. All the reforms were aimed at learning from the

Western “others” their various advanced technologies, and at the same time,

maintaining the Chinese “self” essence, which has been termed “Chinese essence and

Western form” (中体西用).3 Although the reforms failed to prevent the doom of the

dynasty, its process created a self conscious sense of Chinese nationalism, and

2
The Foreign Affairs Movement was also called Self-strengthening Movement (自强运动).
3
For a comprehensive understanding of the notion of “Chinese self and Western form” developed in
modern China, see (Huang, 1992)

229
increasing power of Chinese nationalists, who finally overthrew the Qing dynasty in

the 1911 Revolution (辛亥革命).

Chinese nationalism was intensified in the late 1910s, particularly after the “May

Fourth Movement” (五四运动) in 1919. The movement was to protest against the

unfair treaties signed in the Paris Peace Conference of that year, which was held at the

end of the World War I by the War victors. China, though as an ally of the victors,

was forced to give Shangdong peninsular, the former German colony, to Japan. This

humiliation, together with the effects of the War, made Chinese people question their

former belief in learning technology from the Western “others”, and begin to

concentrate more on uplifting the Chinese “self” essence. For example, LIANG

Qichao (梁启超), the famous historian and reformer, 4 changed his former critical

attitude towards the shortcomings in the Chinese national character after visiting

London and Paris in 1919, and began to advocate a form of “Neo-conservative

Cultural Politics” (整理国故) (Tang, 1996). Liang’s later historiography certainly

reflected the intense interest in redefining Chinese history and culture that seized

many Chinese intellectuals, including his son, LIANG Si Cheng (梁思成, Liang Ssu-

ch’eng). Following his father, Liang S C, who majored in architecture, also

developed a strong interest in the history of Chinese architecture, and became the first

great Chinese architectural historian. It will be considered shortly how Liang S C

inherited his father’s nationalist ideal and contributed to making the nationalistic

“Chinese style” in architecture.

1.1 Making the “Chinese Style” in Architecture

The “Chinese style” of architecture had existed in China even before Chinese

nationalism influenced the architectural field and was widely accepted by Chinese

architects from the 1920s. It was initially used as an experiment in architecture by

4
Liang was one of the leaders of the “One Hundred Day’s Reform” of 1898.

230
foreigners for missionary buildings from the late nineteenth century.5 According to

Cody (1996), missionary architects and clients were consciously trying to make their

buildings such as churches, universities, hospitals, etc., appear more “indigenous” and

less Western, so as to be accepted by local Chinese people. The “Chinese-style”

missionary buildings were characterized by the use of local building materials,

applying Chinese traditional roofs onto steel-and-concrete structures, or imitating

Chinese wooden structures with concrete (Fig.V-1).

As mentioned above, late 1910s Republican China witnessed the intensified

nationalization process. The nationalist KMT government, after realizing the

educational and propaganda function of architecture, called for a “classical Chinese

style” ( 中 国 固 有 式 ) to be invented and adopted for government buildings to

represent a grand nation-state (Lai, 2005). For example, they held many architectural

competitions for the most important government projects such as the Sun Yat-sen

Mausoleum in Nanjing (1925), the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Auditorium in Guangzhou

(1926), the Greater Shanghai Projects (1930), the National Central Museum in

Nanjing (1935) and the Guangdong Province Municipal Building in Guangzhou

(1933). All these projects were in the “Chinese style” and designed by Chinese

architects. 6 The designs were shaped by the Beaux-Arts education the Chinese

5
An early example is the S. Y. Hall of St. John’s University in Shanghai designed by Brennan
Atkinson in 1894.
6
The Sun Yat-sen memorial buildings were designed by LU Yan Zhi (吕彦直), the Greater Shanghai
by DONG Da You (董大酉), the Central Museum by SU Gin-Djih（徐敬直）, and the Guangdong
Municipal by Robert FAN Wen Zhao (范文照).

231
architects had received on one hand,7 and inspired by the above-mentioned foreigners’

experiments on the other (Fig.V-2).8

Undoubtedly, the building activities by the nationalist government promoted

Chinese nationalism and the “Chinese style” of architecture to be accepted by more

and more Chinese architects. At the same time, some Chinese architects, who

themselves had a stronger nationalistic ideal, were not satisfied with government

requirements, and with following foreigner’s precedents. They decided to pursue a

“Chinese style” of architecture of their own, which should embody both new Western

techniques and traditional Chinese characteristics to portray China as a scientific and

advanced nation and at the same time, independent. Then, how could their own

“Chinese style” of architecture be different from those designed by foreigners?

Inspired by the notion of “Chinese essence and Western form” that had been invented

during previous reforms, these Chinese architects tried to apply the notion in

architecture (Rowe & Kuan, 2002), and made great efforts to find what the “essence”

of traditional Chinese architecture is.

One pivotal nationalist Chinese architect was LIANG Si Cheng (梁思成).9 As

mentioned above, his nationalistic ideal, to a large extent, was influenced by his father

7
All the Chinese architects who designed these governmental projects were trained in US. At that time,
it was the Beaux-Arts tradition that dominated American architectural education and practice. As
mentioned in Chapter One, the Beaux-Arts tradition was transplanted to China mainly through the
American-trained Chinese architects, and later became the dominant architectural philosophy
throughout the twentieth century.
8
When studying Henry K. Murphy, an American architect who designed several missionary
universities in China, Cody (1996; Cody, c2001) finds that some Chinese architects who later designed
“Chinese style” architecture themselves used to work with Murphy. For example, LU Yan Zhi, the
designer of the Sun Yat-sen memorial buildings, once worked with Murphy in New York and Shanghai.
DONG Da You, the chief architect of the Greater Shanghai Projects, had previously worked with
Murphy at the Ling Gu Si (灵谷寺) project in Nanjing. For the relationship between Murphy and LU,
also see (Lai, 2005).
9
Liang has been generally accepted as a nationalist architect, see (Zhao, 2000)

232
Liang Qi Chao. For example, when the newly discovered Song dynasty architectural

manuscript Building Standards (宋营造法式)(Li, 1103) was published in 1925, 10

Liang Q C sent a copy to his son Liang S C, who was studying architecture at U. Penn.

in US at that time. In his letter, he stressed the significance of the manuscript as “a

cultural glory of the Chinese nation” ( 吾 族文 化 之光宠 ), and asked his son to

“treasure it” (重保之). 11 Liang S C followed his father’s guidance. Soon after

returning to China, he joined the Institute for Research in Chinese Architecture (中国

营造学社) in 1931, an organization conducting academic research on the history of

Chinese architecture, 12 and started his study of two ancient Chinese construction

manuscripts, the Song Standards, the gift from his father, as well as the Qing dynasty

Structural Regulations (清做法则例) (1734). He also carried out numerous field trips

in China from 1931 to 1946, investigating existing historical architecture to increase

his understanding of the two manuscripts.

Liang’s research not only aimed at studying the history of Chinese architecture,

but also at finding the “essence” of traditional Chinese architecture, which could be

used as the guideline for designing the nationalistic “Chinese style”. Through

studying the history, Liang developed his own theory on the evolution of the

structural building system of Chinese architecture (Liang & Fairbank, 1984). He

claimed that, like the order of classical Greek architecture, the Chinese structural

system also consists of base, column and bracket-set (斗拱), whose proportions are

controlled by the module of Chai (材) (Fig.V-3). When the system reached its full

10
The manuscript was found by ZHU Qiqian (朱启钤) in 1919, who was once the Minister of the
Interior of the Beiyang Government, and in charge of public works. Being aware of the significance of
the manuscript, Zhu helped to published it in 1925. He also founded the Institute for Research in
Chinese Architecture (中国营造学社) in 1929, to conduct academic research on this ancient
manuscript, as well as any other important evidence of the history of Chinese architecture.
11
For influences that Liang S C accepted from his father, see “On Liang Sicheng and Lin Huiyin’s
writings on Chinese architectural history”, in (Lai, 2007), pp.313-331
12
See footnote 10 above.

233
maturity in the “Period of Vigor” ( 劲 豪 时 期 , 9th-11th century), the structure

integrated with the aesthetic, functional and material qualities so perfectly that a

robustness of proportion was achieved. Being aware that structural rationalism is also

a major aspect of the Modern Movement in architecture in the West, Liang (1935)

argued that the Vigor Period could be understood as the “essence” of Chinese

architecture and the prototype of the nationalistic “Chinese style”, which could

connect the past with the modern.

Moreover, Liang sought opportunities to put his theory into practice and to

introduce it to more Chinese architects who designed the “Chinese style” at that time.

For example, in the competition of the National Central Museum in Nanjing in 1935,

Liang, one of the competition consultants, helped the architects of the winning entry13

to alter the model of their design from the Qing Palace to the language of the “Vigor

Period”.14 In addition, Liang, as well as other members of the Institute for Research

in Chinese Architecture, also published their findings in existing historical

architecture during their numerous field trips. In the preface of the publications,

Liang appealed to his contemporary Chinese architects to learn the language of the

past, and to seek for the new language of their own time (S. C. Liang, 1935).

1.2 Attitudes towards the Nationalistic “Chinese Style” of Architecture

What were Liang’s contemporary Chinese architects’ attitudes towards the

nationalistic “Chinese style” of architecture? In particular, how did the migrant

architects respond to this phenomenon?

13
The architects were SU Gin-Djih (徐敬直), YANG Jenken (杨润钧), and LEI Wai Paak (李惠伯) of
Su, Yang & Lei Architects (later known as Hsin Yieh Architects). Su is selected as one of the migrant
architects to be studied. For Su’s nationalist ideals see the following Section Two.
14
For more on Liang’s inputs to the design, see “Idealizing a modern Chinese style: rethinking Liang
Si Cheng's Chinese architectural history writings and the design of the National Central Museum in
Nanjing”, in (Lai, 2007), pp.331-363

234
 It is true that more and more Chinese architects accepted the “Chinese style”

advocated by the nationalist KMT government, and appealed for by nationalist

architects like Liang. In parallel to the historian Liang, who through research,

provided the theoretical basis for the “Chinese style”, some practicing Chinese

architects through building activities, explored appropriate principles to govern the

design of the “Chinese style”. Among them, two leading figures were LU Yan Zhi

(吕彦直), who designed the Sun Yat-sen memorial buildings in Nanjing (1925) and

Guangzhou (1926), and YANG Ting Bao (杨廷宝) who designed many important

government buildings in Nanjing such as the Central Athletic Centre (1930) and the

Central Archives (1934). According to Lai, 15 both endeavored to incorporate the

Beaux-Arts principle of proportion into their “Chinese style” designs.

However, after “Chinese style” architecture blossomed in the 1930s, there were

some critical voices regarding the style (Pan, 2001). There was growing criticism that

according to the functional idea the “Chinese style” would probably lower the utility

level. For example, the space inside the traditional big roof was difficult to convert

for modern use. Moreover, the main critique was from the standpoint of production

efficiency stating that the “Chinese style” wasted a tremendous amount of money, and

caused many construction problems. The reason why the style involved extra expense

was that all kinds of molds needed to be constructed to shape the concrete building

elements into the “Chinese style”. The conventional use of wood was much cheaper.

The making of the molds also caused many construction problems.

An example is the Civic Centre of the Greater Shanghai Projects designed by

DONG Da You (董大酉). In an earlier building of this complex, the Municipal

15
For the study on Lu, see (Lai, 2005). For the study on Yang, see “An ideal underlying the eclectic
design: a study on the proportions of Yang Ting Pao's Architecture”, in (Lai, 2007), pp. 289-313

235
Building of Shanghai (1933), the whole volume was housed under a Chinese

traditional curved roof made of concrete (Fig.II-1). However, in two later buildings,

the Municipal Museum (1935) and the Library (1935), much smaller curved roofs

were applied in the upper central parts, while a flat roof in the lower parts made up the

majority of the roof area (Fig.V-4). Dong (1935), the project architect, admitted that

the change was made to avoid growing economic difficulties.

A few Chinese architects criticized the “Chinese style” of architecture in a more

radical way. The most radical comment was probably the one given by TONG Jun

(童寯) (1937) “If this Renaissance16 is merely a matter of putting a temple roof over a

factory, then adding a pigtail to a dead man ought to bring him back to life!” However,

in the same article, he also expressed his hope that any attempt to give a building local

color would constitute China’s contribution to world architecture in the future. He

praised the flat-roof domestic housing in the Tibet area, and tried to design a

simplified “Chinese style” by himself (Fig.II-2). 17 Apparently, although Tong

questioned the architectural expressions of the “Chinese style”, he held the same

patriotic sentiment as his contemporary nationalistic Chinese architects. In other

words, although there were some voices critical of the “Chinese style”, the Chinese

nationalistic identity had been largely accepted.

16
The creation of the “Chinese style” architecture was also termed as the movement of the Chinese
Renaissance. Hitherto, it is found that Henry Murphy, the famous missionary architect, may be among
the earliest who used the term. See “An architectural renaissance in China: the utilization in modern
public buildings of the great styles of the past” in (Murphy, 1928)
17
Tong designed the Ministry of Diplomacy in Nanjing. The whole building was under flat roof, of
which the eaves were treated with simplified Chinese details to satisfy the political requirements. One
of his assistants, Liu (1992) mentioned that Tong himself was still not satisfied with the compromise.

236
237
 Some of the migrant architects’ attitudes towards the “Chinese style” were

supportive. For example, SU Gin Djih (徐敬直) was one of the designers who won

the competition for the National Central Museum in the “Chinese style”. He followed

the pivotal nationalist architect Liang Si Cheng’s guidance to alter the winning design

to adopt the language of the “Vigor Period”. Apparently, Su supported the

nationalistic “Chinese style” of architecture, and was familiar with the ideal created

by Liang Si Cheng when in Mainland China. After he had settled in Hong Kong for

more than a decade, he still adhered to the belief, and even wrote a book to express

his nationalist ideal (Hsü, 1964). His book not only echoes Liang’s study on

traditional Chinese architecture, but also studies the history of the “Chinese style”

itself, extending to the post-1949 era. Su’s case and his book will be studied in the

following Section Two.

Another example of an advocate of the “Chinese style” of architecture was

CHANG Chao Kang （张肇康）. Chang developed patriotic sentiments during his

study at the St. John’s University in Shanghai in the 1940s. He also once worked with

YANG Ting Bao (杨廷宝), who as mentioned played the leading roles in designing

the “Chinese style” of architecture. As a result, although Chang did not witness the

making of the “Chinese style” in the 1920s and 1930s, he inherited a strong national

identity from the elder generations of Chinese architects, and made effort to deepen

his own understanding. After 1979 when China was re-opened to the West, he

conducted more than seventy-three trips into Mainland China to investigate

vernacular domestic buildings in different regions. He also published a book to

present the findings of the field trips, showing his understanding of the Chinese

architectural tradition (Chang & Blaser, 1987). Chang’s understanding will be

238
compared with the ideal created by his predecessor Liang Si Cheng in the Section

Three of this chapter.

In contrast, some migrant architects, although previously using the “Chinese

style” of architecture, changed their attitudes either radically or gradually. For

example, Robert FAN Wen Zhao （ 范 文 照 ） , in a 1934 article, criticized the

“Chinese style”. Fan admitted that he himself had designed many “Chinese style”

projects, and appealed to others to “correct this mistake” with him. He demonstrated

clearly his new concept that “a building should be designed from inner to outer rather

than from outer to inner” and “science first and beauty second” (Fan, 1934). In fact,

Fan was also trained under the Beaux-Arts education at U. Penn. as Liang Si Cheng.

He once used the “Chinese style” to win several government competitions, and to

erect many governmental buildings in the new capital Nanjing after 1927. His

radically-changed attitude can possibly be attributed to Carl Lindbohm, a Swedish

modernist architect who joined Fan’s Shanghai firm as a partner in 1933; as well as

attributed to Fan’s tour to Europe in 1935. In the Section Four of this chapter, the

changes of Fan’s architectural ideal and design strategy will be highlighted.

Like Fan, CHU Pin（朱彬）once designed “Chinese style” projects, and changed

this practice later, though not as radically as Fan. Chu was also trained under the

Beaux-Arts education at U. Penn. as were Liang and Fan. Moreover, Chu was one of

the three partners of the Kwan, Chu & Yang Architects, a firm expert in designing in

the “Chinese style”. The partner “Yang”, YANG Ting Bao, another U. Penn.

graduate, was the above-mentioned leading figure in designing in the style. His

design of the Sun Co. Ltd in Shanghai in 1935, a high-rise composite building in the

“Chinese style’ is proof that Chu was adept in designing in this style. However, Chu

gradually transformed his practice and developed an urbanism design strategy, after

he migrated to Hong Kong in 1949, as a result of his adaptation to Hong Kong’s

239
political and economic post-war situation, as well as to its unique cityscape. Chu’s

transformation and his contribution to Hong Kong’s urban development will be

examined in the Section Five of this chapter.

Some migrant architects, although accepting the Chinese national identity, held a

neutral stand towards the “Chinese style”. For example, LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受)

was idealistically devoted to “China”, as mentioned in Chapter Two, Section Three,

Subsection Four. However, both he and Channcey WU Kingkei （ 吴 景 奇 ）

published “Our declaration” in the 1930s, remaining distant from the popular topic of

the “Chinese style”. They declared that their focus would be the specific problems

and challenges of individual projects rather than the general style argument. They did

not care which style they used, either the Chinese, international, or eclectic. Their

concerns in architecture included four basic aspects, that is, functional requirement,

social context, aesthetic principle, and cultural spirit (Luke & Wu 1936b).18 Again,

through designing “Chinese style” projects in post-war Hong Kong, Luke

differentiated himself from the majority of the migrant architects. It appears that

Luke did not deliberately adopt or reject the “Chinese style” according to the political

environment of either Mainland China or Hong Kong. His individual distinction as

well as his architectural concerns will be studied in the Section Six of this chapter.

18
Luke and Wu’s original texts are “我们以为派别是无关重要的。一件成功的建筑作品，第一不
能离开实用的需要；第二不能离开时代的背景；第三不能离开美术的原理，第四不能离开文化
的精神。”

240
 2 SU Gin Djih: A Nationalistic Perspective outside China

As mentioned in previous chapters and the above, SU

Gin Djih (徐敬直) (Fig.V-5) was an American-trained

Chinese architect. He first obtained the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Architecture at the University of

Michigan in 1929. He also held the George G. Booth

Scholarship in Architecture at Cranbrook Academy of Art.

Before returning to China in 1932, he practiced under

Eliel Saarinen for a time, being involved in the design of

Fig. V-5 SU Gin-Djih
Kingswood School，Cranbrook. With such an excellent (徐敬直，1906-？)

educational background, there can be no doubt about his The Builder, Vol. 7, No.6

architectural ability.

In pre-1949 Mainland China, Su was one of the founding partners of the firm,

Hsin Yieh Architects & Associates (兴业建筑师事务所). He joined the Society of

Chinese Architects in 1933 and was elected as Council Member in 1948. With a

strong national identity, he also succeeded in designing the “Chinese style” of

architecture, and was familiar with the architectural ideal created by Liang Si Cheng.

In post-1949 Hong Kong, Su achieved a high reputation among local professionals.

He contributed greatly to the founding of the HKSA and was elected as the First

President of the society. Like most of the migrant architects, he registered as a private

Authorized Architects and designed a large number of private projects. Moreover, he

was among the few migrant architects who were famous enough to directly receive

many government commissions. Added up to the above merits, he also published a

book on Chinese architecture to express his nationalist ideal (Hsü, 1964). His book is

241
of important historical value and will be studied later in this section, for few migrant

architects left written materials concerning their history.19

However, it is rather surprising that among a large number of Su’s projects in

Hong Kong which this research has discovered, none was in “Chinese style”.

Moreover, in his 281-page-text and 264-plate-image book on Chinese architecture, no

word mentions Hong Kong, although it does mention Mainland China and Taiwan;

and no plate is about his Hong Kong projects, although it does contain his pre-1949

Mainland works. Why was the “Chinese style” of architecture, which Su previously

designed in Mainland China, and which he devoted his later years in Hong Kong to

write about, not found among his Hong Kong projects? Why was Hong Kong, where

Su successfully built up the second half of his career, and his Hong Kong projects

which were greater in number than his works in Mainland China, not included in his

book on Chinese architecture? Apparently, the general reason of political sensitivity

is not sufficient in Su’s case. A study of his book may provide clues to the answer.

2.1 Su’s Nationalistic Ideal

At the beginning of his book Chinese Architecture: Past and Contemporary, Su

states that the purpose of his writing is to present references for “finding and creating

a new style in Chinese Architecture with new materials, new methods of construction

and new knowledge in strength of materials and engineering mechanics which will fit

in with the present way of life.” (Hsü, 1964, p.6) In other words, as a practicing

architect, Su’s writing aimed at the design of a new “Chinese style”, rather than

merely historical research.

19
This research discovers two books written by the migrant architects. One book is written by Su under
the name, “Hsü, Ching Chih”, which is another spelling for his Chinese name 徐敬直. The other is by
CHANG Chao Kang （张肇康）, which will be studied in the following Section Three.

242
 Su’s purpose echoed that of LIANG Si Cheng (梁思成). As an architectural

historian, Liang tried to find the “essence” of traditional Chinese architecture in order

to facilitate the design of the “Chinese style”. Su once followed Liang’s guidance to

design the “Chinese style” National Central Museum in Nanjing in 1935. Although

Su did not clearly acknowledge Liang’s influence on his writing, he did praise the

work of the Institute for Research in Chinese Architecture led by Liang and

mentioned that it was “the key to the Chinese constructional method…and most

beneficial to the western-trained architects” (p. 136). He directly used some measured

drawings done by the institute as the illustrations in his book (plate 239-244). More

importantly, his understanding of history also implies the influence of Liang’s

architectural ideal.

There are three main parts in his book. In the first part, Su reviewed the history of

Chinese architecture as an evolutionary process, from the ancient period to the

Republican China. He concluded that “the evolution of Chinese architecture…had to

pass through the various stages of creation, experiment, maturity, imitation,

multiplication, dissension, revolution, and creation aiming at new forms in

architecture” (p.242). He agreed that after the twelfth century, the Chinese wooden

structure “tended to be feeble and weak”, (p.77) and “the most creative and vital

phase in the development of Chinese art and culture drew to a close” (p.122).20 In

comparison, Liang’s theory is also an evolutionary one on the building structural

system of Chinese architecture. Following the mature “Period of Vigor” (劲豪时期,

ninth to eleventh century) were those weakened periods of “Elegance” (醇和时期)

and “Rigidity” (羁直时期). It was the “Period of Vigor” that was taken by Liang as

the prototype of the nationalistic “Chinese style”. Apparently, Su and Liang shared

the evolutionary view on the history of traditional Chinese architecture.

20
The statement here Su cited from (Munsterberg, 1954), p.193

243
 In the third part of his book, Su tries to address the common characteristics of

Chinese architecture and housing. For example, it is common for Chinese

architecture to have symmetrical planning; the three important components of an

individual building: platform, wooden structural frames and roof; bracket system; the

five primary colors; and the importance of the gate; etc. When writing of housing,

although four different regions were studied separately,21 the common features were

stated: firstly, “the courtyard type plan is used commonly”; and secondly, “the

structural framework of houses everywhere is the same” (p. 227).

Similarly, Liang’s mainstream evolutionary theory was based on the study of two

ancient government manuals, the Song Standards and the Qing Regulations, with the

evidence found in the comparable examples of existing historical buildings. When it

comes to the various domestic buildings over the vast area of China, which are alien

to the government buildings in the north, Liang categorized them into four regions,22

and reached the conclusion that “this osseous construction…by the simple adjustment

of the proportion…renders a house practical and comfortable in any climate from that

of tropical Indochina to that of subarctic Manchuria.” (Liang & Fairbank, 1984, p.8)

In other words, Su and Liang shared the interest in the similarity, rather than the

diversity of Chinese architecture.

The purpose of writing, the evolutionary view, and the interest in similarity, which

were shared by Su and Liang, point to the same nationalistic ideal in architecture.

They tried to portray the newly invented “Chinese style” as a creative step in the

evolutionary history of Chinese architecture, and tried to transpose the homogeneous

21
The four regions studied by Su are the north and north-east region; cave and kiln dwelling areas in
Shansi Honan and Shensi provinces; the region south of the Yangtse River and Yunnan District.
22
The four regions categorized by Liang are exactly the same as those studied by Su. See ibid. It
appears that Su probably followed Liang’s example, for Liang’s research was done in the 1940s, while
Su in the 1960s.

244
essence from the past to the contemporary. In doing so, the “Chinese style” of

architecture may serve to reflect the validity, monopoly, and glory of the modern

Chinese nation-state.

However, if Su and Liang shared the same national identity of “one world, one

China, one nation, and one state”, they deviated from each other at the point of “one

party”.23 In the second part of the book, Su reviewed the history of the “Chinese

style” in the contemporary era. He highly valued the creation of the “Chinese style”

in Republican China, and in the KMT Taiwan, while heavily criticizing the building

ideology of the PRC regime. Through studying the CCP’s official Architectural

Journal (建筑学报), Su was informed that Liang’s architectural ideal prevailed in

Mainland China in the early 1950s, and led to the construction of many “Chinese

style” government buildings in Beijing. However, from the mid 1950s, Liang was

under severe public attacks for the design of the “Chinese style”, which was judged as

a mistake of formalism, capitalistic idealism, and waste by the CCP’s new building

ideology.24 He felt pity for Liang, as well as other contemporary Chinese architects,

who stayed in Mainland China, suffering various political campaigns, and who were

totally deprived of freedom of self-expression. He even regretted that the pursuit of

the “Chinese style” was reduced to being a mistake and a common target for attacks.

23
The notion is borrowed from Fitzgerald’s book Awakening China (1996). The four central chapters
of the book were headed “One World, One China”, “One China, One Nation”, “One Nation, One State”
and “One State, One Party”, which convey the overlapping stages the Chinese nation-state being
conceived. “One State, One party”, here, refers to China, a strongly centralized state that was gradually
controlled by one party, either KMT or CCP.
24
The new PRC was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union. It first followed Stalin’s “National in
Form, Socialist in Content”, and took the “Chinese style” as China’s national style and socialist content.
However, when Khrushchev criticized Stalin and his policies, and instituted the new campaign of anti-
waste, the PRC also changed it building ideology to “utility, economy and, if possible beauty”, and
criticize the “Chinese style” as a mistake of waste (Zhu, 2001).

245
 It was the 1949 migration that led to the deviation between Su and Liang. Su had

migrated to Hong Kong after 1949 and was able to observe as an outsider, the

destinies of Liang and the “Chinese style” in Mainland China, and to publish the book

to express himself freely. In this sense, Hong Kong was important for Su’s

nationalistic writing. However, it was absent in his nationalistic perspective.

2.2 The Absence of Hong Kong

There can be no dispute that Mainland China occupied the central position in Su’s

nationalistic perspective, for both traditional Chinese architecture and the “Chinese

style” originated on the Mainland. However, it should be noted that Taiwan, on

China’s geographical periphery, attracted particular attention from Su to its post-1949

era. For example, Su used a total of fifty-three plates on buildings in the KMT

Taiwan, while only seven plates on those in PRC. The majority of the Taiwan

buildings mentioned were in the “Chinese style”.

It is true that the “Chinese style” was emphasized in post-1949 Taiwan. On one

hand, the retreated KMT government had an urgent need to reinforce its political and

cultural orthodoxy by using the nationalistic style in its government buildings and on

the other hand, many Mainland architects who came to Taiwan with the government

had the architectural experience to fulfill this need. According to Su, Taiwan was the

“Free China” (pp. 140, 146, 149), where “many Chinese architects came…still

imbued with the zeal of Chinese Renaissance, carried on their work…devoted

themselves to designing and constructing buildings in a national style, like those in

Nanjing and Shanghai in the twenties and thirties” (p. 146).

Among the “Chinese style” of architecture in Taiwan introduced in his book, Su

valued the Teachers’ Clubs designed by a female Mainland architect, Miss SIU Che-

246
Lan (修泽兰),25 that “the clubs may serve as examples in Chinese architecture of

what’s new and Chinese”. (p. 150) (Fig.V-6) This same term “new and Chinese” was

actually used to describe the ideal “Chinese style” of architecture that he

understood. 26 He further praised “the architects in Taiwan, armed with free

thought…surviving the spirit of the Chinese Renaissance…using new techniques, new

materials and new ideas” (p. 152).

In Su’s nationalistic perspective, the position of Taiwan was geographically on the

periphery, but culturally and politically in the centre, because it was the capital of the

nationalist KMT government. In comparison, Hong Kong had no such nationalist

relations, and was on the periphery both geographically, culturally, and politically.

Moreover, the government’s neutral stand in regard to the Communist PRC and the

nationalist Taiwan, and its colonial context made it impossible to be an ardent,

nationalistic, Chinese architect in Hong Kong. With this nationalistic perspective, it

will not be surprising that Su did not mention his many modern designs in post-1949

Hong Kong, and only introduced in detail his three “Chinese style” designs in pre-

1949 Mainland China: the National Central Museum in Nanjing (1935, pp.136-137)

(Fig.V-7), the Central Agricultural Experimental Bureau in Nanjing (1933, p.138)

(Fig.V-8), and the wartime Nanjing Central University in Chongqing (1937, pp.216-

217). Su’s deliberate disregard for Hong Kong made his nationalistic ideal even more

evident.

25
SIU Che-Lan (修泽兰) was a China-trained architect, graduating from the National Central
University in 1947, who came to Taiwan in 1949. Her “Chinese style” designs were also reported in
Hong Kong’s local journal The Builder, Vol.19, No.4, pp.84-87; Vol.1968, No.8, pp.27-30.
26
In the conclusion of the book, Su wrote “What is the national form we need? Simply speaking [it is]
a style which is ‘new and Chinese’.” (p. 244)

247
248
 3 CHANG Chao Kang: A Regionalist Approach

Unlike in Su’s nationalistic perspective, Hong Kong

had an important position in CHANG Chao Kang’s （张肇

康）(Fig.V-9) regionalist approach.

Chang was born in Guangdong province in 1922, and

raised in both Hong Kong and Shanghai (W. M. Chang, et

al., 1993). He was one of the first architectural graduates at

Fig. V-9 CHANG Chao
the St. John’ University in Shanghai, which was the first Kang
school of architecture in China to adopt the Bauhaus (张肇康，1922－1992)
(W. M. Chang, et al., 1993)
system (Qian, 2008; Lai, Qian, Wang, et al., c2004; Wu &

Qian, 2003) After graduation with the degree of Bachelor of Science in architectural

engineering in 1946, he entered the firm of Kwan, Chu & Yang Architects, and

worked under Yang Ting Bao, who as mentioned was the leading Chinese architect

designing in the “Chinese style”. According to a journal interview (Lin, 1993), Chang

attributed his social consciousness to the Bauhaus education he received at the St.

John’s U., and his national identity to the wartime reality he witnessed in 1940s

Shanghai. Although he did not witness the making of the “Chinese style” in the

1920s and 1930s, he was undoubtedly influenced by the older generation of Chinese

architects like Yang on the significance of the “Chinese style”.

During the 1949 migration, Chang left Mainland China. In the following three

decades, he studied and practiced in the US, Taiwan and Hong Kong. It was not until

1979 when China was re-opened to the West, that Chang could enter Mainland China

again to practice, to teach, and to do research. From the late 1970s, Chang’s Hong

Kong firm designed projects both in Hong Kong and Mainland China. He served as a

249
part-time lecturer on architectural design and Chinese traditional architecture at the

HKU, CUHK, and in the Mainland’s universities such as the South China Institute of

Technology in Guangzhou. He conducted more than seventy-three trips into Mainland

China to investigate vernacular domestic buildings in different regions. He also

produced a book in Hong Kong to present the field-trip findings on the Mainland

(Chang & Blaser, 1987).

That Hong Kong served as a bridge between the East and the West has been

generally accepted and was evident in Chang’s case. Moreover, as will be proven,

Hong Kong contributed greatly to the creation of his regionalist perspective. What

were the characteristics of Chang’s regionalist perspective when compared with his

predecessors such as Liang and Su? How did it develop? What was Hong Kong’s

role in the development?

It was Liang Si Cheng who created the theoretical basis for the nationalistic ideal,

which was largely shared by Su as well as other Chinese nationalistic architects.

More importantly, Chang’s seventy-three field trips in Mainland China during 1983-

1986 are comparable to those conducted by Liang during 1931-1946, for the places

they investigated largely overlap. Like Liang who presented his discoveries in the

book of A Pictorial History of Chinese Architecture (cf. Liang & Fairbank, 1984;

Liang, 1985 ed.), Chang published China: Tao in Architecture (Chang & Blaser, 1987)

as a summary of his observations. Therefore, a comparison of the two books may

reveal the character of Chang’s regionalist perspective.

3.1 A Comparison between Chang and Liang

In the book China: Tao in Architecture (Chang & Blaser, 1987), Chang criticized

the hectic modernization in 1980s Mainland China as superficial and rootless. “…in

‘special economic zones’ and big port cities, in less than ten years, jungles of towering

250
buildings had sprung up. They were lavish with superfluous materials and gimmicky

devices, unresolved in form and tricked out with superficial looks of

modernization…For the architects, they were tempted by curiosity and ambition to try

our things that had been newly learnt and perceived but not properly digested and

evaluated, regardless whether there was any architectural justification.” (p. 209-210).

He also expressed his “earnest and wholehearted hope that the modernization of

Chinese architecture will result in a modern architecture speaking Chinese language

and having social identity, cultural continuance and a sense of place” (p.213).

It appears that like Liang and Su, Chang had urgent concerns for the architectural

problems in Mainland China, and tried to find the solutions from the Chinese

architectural tradition. How to design a modern architecture “speaking Chinese

language” was the ultimate purpose of Chang’s research and writing on history.

However, unlike the historian Liang who was trained under the Beaux-Arts tradition,

Chang was a practicing architect educated in the Bauhaus system with extensive

practical experience in different regions outside China. His writing was a half century

later than Liang’s, and two decades later than Su’s. Therefore, it is not surprising that

there are sharp differences between them, and between the two books by Liang and

Chang.

First of all, the subjects of the two books are different. In other words, although

Liang and Chang visited the same place, they paid attention to different buildings.

The main subjects in Liang’s discoveries were monumental timber-frame buildings,

such as, palaces and temples, which could serve as evidence for his study on the two

ancient government manuals, the Song Standards and the Qing Regulations. As

mentioned, when it came to various domestic buildings, it was the similarity, rather

than the diversity, that interested Liang (Liang & Fairbank, 1984).27

27
See the comparison between Su and Liang in the previous section.

251
 Contrary to Liang, Chang used vernacular domestic buildings as the main

subjects, and paid more attention to their distinctive characteristics rather than their

structural similarities. He photographed the ordinary elements such as a base of a

post, a piece of a retaining wall, and a corner of furniture. His presentation shed

lights on the felicitous and life-enhancing ways, in which the ordinary materials are

arranged by anonymous builders. Moreover, the houses of contemporary ordinary

people were researched carefully. For instance, individuals in the loess belt were

found to carefully apply their traditional techniques of rammed earth. Those in south

Fujian preferred to try their hands and imaginations in brickwork and masonry rather

than timber. And, those in north China craved for the magic of “modernization” and

used readily available materials. Attention was given to the individuals who had lived

in the houses under investigation. The main examples in the book include residences

of some distinguished figures, like the scholar LU Xun (鲁迅), the scholar politician

GUO Mo Ruo (郭沫若), and the female revolutionary martyr QIU Jin (秋瑾). In

other words, it was the spirit of people, both the ordinary and the intellectual that

made the common elements special (Fig.V-10).

Secondly, the two books employ different approaches of analysis. Apart from

photographs, Liang used section drawings as the main approach to present building

structures. Just as it was explained by himself, “the structure has retained its organic

qualities…thus this study…is primarily a study of its anatomy. For this reason the

section drawings are much more important than the elevations. This is an aspect quite

different from the study of European architecture, except perhaps the Gothic in which

the construction governs more of the exterior appearance than in any other style.”

(Liang & Fairbank, 1984, p.3)28

28
According to Lai, Liang’ emphasis on structural principles was a response to the Western trend of
modern architecture in the 1930s, which upheld structural rationality shared by Gothic architecture.

252
 In contrast, the majority of the drawing illustrations in Chang’s book are plans.

Although he did not give any explanation, the reason might relate to his emphasis on

space. For example, when describing the plan of GUO Mo Ruo’s residence, he

highlighted the two courtyards as space with multi-purposes (Fig.V-11, Number One

and Two); two covered passages as space for connection (Number Three and Four);

and the other adjacent pavilion between the garden and the studios as space for

meditation (Number Five). It is worth noting that this pavilion, in typical Chinese

tradition, had no exterior walls, and acted as a link to nature. In such a pavilion

thought can create imagination, and the eye can transform visual perception into ideas.

The full harmony between feeling and spirit makes it a place for meditation.

Thirdly, the two books addressed different ideals, which may be indicated by two

terms “Grammar” and “Tao”. Liang (Liang & Fairbank, 1984) first called the two

government manuals, the Song Standards and the Qing Regulations “two grammar

books”, for they contain well-regulated rules governing design and construction in

ancient times. He (1975) further demonstrated that just as every language has its own

vocabulary and grammar, Chinese architecture is unique in various building elements

and the rules of assembling those elements into an architectural whole. By then, to

the traditional linguistic analogy was added the new function that architecture was a

reflection of nation traits, or even a complete expression of the national life (Schuyler,

1894, cited in Collins, 1965, p.175). Therefore, through adopting the linguistic

analogy, Liang’s historical writing on Chinese architecture clearly pointed to the

nationalistic ideal (Lai, 2007; Zhao, 2000). 29

See “On Liang Sicheng and Lin Huiyin’s Writings on Chinese Architectural History”, in (Lai, 2007),
pp.313-331
29
Using the linguistic analogy was also due to the Western background Liang faced. There was the
popular Sir. Banister Fletcher’s A History of Architecture (1901), which regarded Western architecture
as historical style with linear evolution, while dishonoring the Eastern as non-historical.

253
 Chang entitled his book with the term “Tao”, which may originate from the most

ancient Chinese philosophy Taoism ( 道 家 ). At the beginning of the book, he

explained that “the ‘Tao’ (Dao, 道), or the way, of architecture is a testimony to the

complexity and variety of an essentially homogeneous culture…” (Chang & Blaser,

1987, p.8). At the end of the book, he appeals that “may the Chinese saying

‘everyone has his Taiji and everything has its Taiji’ apply to architects and architecture

as well, and may the ‘Ying’ and ‘Yang’ of the Taiji interact in perfect harmony so as to

send ‘Dao’ on its way.” (p.213)

In Taoist philosophy, “Ying” (the invisible, 阴) and “Yang” (the visible, 阳) are

opposing forces which complement each other and strive for unity and perfect balance.

The Chinese way that Chang observed from vernacular architecture was not only the

visible such as vernacular housing forms, but also the invisible such as spirits of

people, space models, and the harmonious relationships among place, people and

living habits. In other words, Chang went beyond Liang’s physical consideration of

building elements and rules, and tried to grasp the invisible but more essential parts of

Chinese architecture. The invisible essence, as well as the vernacular subjects and the

place-centered approach, all echoed the features of “Critical Regionalism”, an

important critical assessment of modernization. 30 With such a regionalist stance,

Chang’s book offered not only a possible solution to resist the superficial and rootless

modernization in Mainland China, but also a deepened perspective to re-think the

nationalistic ideal held by Liang and Su.

30
According to Frampton’s conclusion (1985), the seven features of “Critical Regionalism” are critique
of modernization, place-form; tectonic; site-specific factors such as topography, light and climatic;
emphasizing the tactile as much as the visual; world culture; and cultural interstices.

254
 3.2 Hong Kong in Chang’s Regionalist Perspective

How did Chang develop such a regionalist perspective? And, what was Hong

Kong’s role in the development? This research finds that it was Chang’s educational

and practical experience in different regions that helped to develop his regionalist

perspective.

Apart from his Mainland experience, Chang also studied and practiced in the US,

Taiwan and Hong Kong. In 1948, Chang left for the United States. He first studied at

the Illinois Institute of Technology where he met Buckminster Fuller and Moholy-

Nagy, and then participated in Walter Gropius’s master class on architectural design at

Harvard U. while taking credits in town planning and graphics at MIT. After

graduating with a Master degree (1950), he received further training under Gropius in

the Architects’ Collaborative (TAC).

When associated with I. M. Pei & Partners of New York in 1954, Chang had a

very important experience in the planning, design and construction of Tunghai

campus in Taiwan (Fig.V-12). The project is admired as a pioneer and successful

example of the use of Chinese folk architectonic forms and details in a modern

university. In the Tunghai project Chang showed his respect for the Chinese tradition,

while in another project of the Agricultural Exhibition Hall of National Taiwan

University (1963) he emphasized the modernistic side of his design (Fig.V-13). There

is no pitched roof, but the cubic massing, open plan, and desire for lightness were

achieved by the mastery of local materials like the wall of grill panels. This change

had much to do with his Hong Kong practices at that time.

In the book, Chang (1987) highlights the regional climate in the southern coastal

district, including Hong Kong. “Typhoons and torrential rain…long hours of sunshine

in the summer months generate much radiant heat which, when combined with the
255
high humidity riding from the surrounding seas and rivers, presents a difficult

problem to be overcome.” Then, he also gives his own solutions, for example,

“selection of fenestration types, with consideration given to sizes and mode of

operation to afford shade from the sun or to keep out the rain; heat insulation of roofs

and external walls”, etc. (Chang & Blaser, 1987, pp.175-176).

Two Hong Kong projects he carried out in the 1960s were practical examples to

prove his solutions. In the Pacific Centre in Central, the structural columns were

specially treated to contain building service pipes, and to form deeper window frames

(Fig.V-14). This treatment not only afforded more shade, but also led to a rhythmic

façade expression. In another school design at Yau Yat Tsuen, Kowloon, the open

corridors as well as its additional shading system on the exterior side also fulfilled

both functional and aesthetic requirements (Fig.V-15).31

In conclusion, Chang’s educational and practical experience played key roles in

the study of Chinese vernacular architecture and the development of the regionalist

perspective. The Bauhaus education gave him the eye and the mind of a modernistic

architect; the cooperation with I. M. Pei in Taiwan reminded him of the treasure of

Chinese tradition; and the Hong Kong projects trained his environmental sensitivity

and contextual responsiveness. In this sense, Hong Kong not only served as a bridge

connecting Chang’s activities inside and outside China, but also became an important

part in his regionalist perspective.

31
From 1960, Chang was introduced into Eric Cumine’s Hong Kong firm by Stanley KWOK Tun-Li
（郭敦礼）, his alumnus at St. John U., and engaged in many Hong Kong projects under Kwok,
including these two projects.

256
257
258
 4 FAN Wen Zhao: From “Chinese Style” to “International Style”

Robert FAN Wen Zhao（范文照）(Fig.V-16) should be

admired as a pioneer among the First Generation of Chinese

architects. As early as 1917, Fan graduated with the

Bachelor degree in engineering from the St. John’s U. in

Shanghai. After teaching at St. John’s as an engineering

Professor for two years, he furthered his education in

architecture at U. Penn. in the US, obtaining another

Bachelor degree in architecture in 1921, and returned to Fig. V-16 FAN Wen Zhao
(范文照，1893-1979)
Shanghai in 1922. He first joined Lam Glines & Company
(Lai et al., 2006)
（允元公司）, and opened his own firm in 1927, which

was one of the first Chinese architectural firms in Shanghai. Therefore, many

Western-trained Chinese architects who returned later than Fan, entered his firm

temporarily to better adapt to the Shanghai Market. Among them were some famous

figures such as ZHAO Shen (赵深), SU Gin Djih (徐敬直), LEI Wai Paak (李惠伯),
32
Channcey WU Kingkei ( 吴 景 奇 ). Also in 1927, Fan founded the Society of

Chinese Architecture in Shanghai with several others, and was elected the First

President.

Apart from referring to “early” in time, the term “pioneer” also refers to his

radical changes in design concept. Before 1934, Fan designed many projects in the

“Chinese style”. For example, he won government design competitions in the

“Chinese style”, such as second prize for the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum in Nanjing

(1925), third prize for the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Auditorium in Guangzhou (1926),

32
Zhao was the founder of the Allied Architects（华盖）, Su and Lei founders of the Hsin Yieh
Architects (兴业), and Wu chief architect of the Bank of China Head Office Building Department (中
国银行建筑课). All the three firms were listed in the top ten Chinese firms in Republican China (Lai
et al., 2006).

259
and the winning entry for the Guangdong Province Municipal Building in Guangzhou

(1931). Other “Chinese style” projects Fan designed included government buildings

in the new capital Nanjing such as the Ministry of Railways (1930), Li Che Sheh or

the Officer’s Club (1931), and the Overseas Chinese Hostel (1931), as well as the

Chinese Y.M.C.A. in Shanghai (1933) (Fig.V-17).

But, from 1934, Fan radically turned from the “Chinese style” to the “international

style”. By then, with the intensified nationalization process, the “Chinese style” of

architecture was becoming topic of great interest and discussed, practiced and pursued

by many Chinese architects. At the same time, according to Lai, 33 some Chinese

architects who worked in Shanghai, the most rapidly commercializing and

modernizing city in Republican China, began to erect high-rise buildings (摩天楼)

and buildings in “modern style” such as “Art-Deco” (摩登式). However, most of

them, from the viewpoint of eclecticism, regarded the modernistic expressions as

choices among the many styles they could adopt. Without a deep understanding of

modernistic expressions, they preferred to design projects in various styles at the same

time.

Fan was among the few Chinese architects who took the modernistic expressions

more seriously. In a 1934 article, he criticized the “Chinese style” and called upon

others to “correct this mistake” with him. He demonstrated his new concept as “a

building should be designed from inner to outer rather than from outer to inner” and

“science first and beauty second” (Fan, 1934). Since the mid-1930s, Fan adhered to

his new attitude, and actively designed architecture in modernistic expressions. His

later works in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong substantiated this change, and

presented a consistent development.

33
See “Modernity and nationality: attitudes concerning the modernization of Chinese architecture”, in
(Lai, 2007), pp.181-239

260
 Why did such a radical change take place in Fan’s attitude? How did his Hong

Kong projects contribute to the consistent development of his modernistic ideal?

4.1 A Radical Turnabout from “Chinese Style” to “International Style” in

Shanghai

There were probably two main reasons for Fan’s radical change. The primary one

was Carl Lindbohm who joined Fan’s Shanghai firm as a new partner in 1933.

Lindbohm was a Swedish architect from America who previously followed some

leading modern architects such as Le Corbusier, Wright, Gropius, etc. His arrival and

comments on Shanghai’s architecture attracted much attention and were reported by

Shanghai’s local newspapers.34 For example, he commented that unlike architecture

in the past, which although built for different purposes, had the same monumental

appearance, the new design of the “Guo Ji Shi” (国际式) was based on the principles

of function and economy rather than ethics or aesthetics. (The China Times 时事新报,

1933.4.5). He also commented on a newly erected bank in Shanghai, which had a

Roman classical exterior and the most updated interior facilities, “it is unbelievable

that a modern bank is housed in a building with a more than 2,000-year old

style!”(Shen Bao 申报, 1933.8.15)

Apparently, Fan’s new concept declared in 1934 “to design from inner to outer

rather than from outer to inner” and “science first and beauty second” (Fan, 1934)

largely echoed Lindbohm’s comments. According to Lai,35 it could be concluded that

34
See “Carl Lindbohm architect and the new design of the ‘international style’”, in ("Shi shi xin bao
The China times,"), 1933.2.15; “Re-comments on the international style: advocated by Carl Lindbohm,
the new partner of famous architect Robert Fan”, in ibid., 1933.4.5; “On the international style”, in
("Shen bao,") 1933.5.16; “Carl Lindbohm architect on interior design” in Ibid., 1933.8.15. Cited in
(Lai, 2007)
35
See footnote 33 above.

261
the new design of “Guo Ji Shi” advocated by Lindbohm and Fan was the

“international style”, a newly invented term by Alfred H. Barr, Jr. in 1932 to define

the 1920s Modern Movement (Hitchcock & Johnson, 1995).36

Apart from direct influence from Lindbohm, Fan also confirmed his new attitude

during his trip to Europe in 1935. He first went to London to attend the 14th

International Federation for Housing and Town Planning as a national representative

for the KMT government.37 After the conference, he visited twenty European cities

including Paris, Berlin, and Rome. He thus had the firsthand experience of the

Modern Movement in Europe and admired the architecture in Germany most (Fan,

1936).

The radical change in Fan’s attitude was demonstrated in his designs. In 1934, a

year after Lindbohm joined the firm, he began to design “pure” international style

architecture such as the Yafa Apartment (Fig.V-18). However, this research chooses

a later project for case study, the Majestic Theater (1941, Shanghai). By then,

Lindbohm had left Fan’s firm, 38 and thus the theatre could be fully credited to Fan.

“Majestic Theatre” (1941, Shanghai)

The site is flat and located at the corner of Jiangning Road and Fengxian Road in

the former International Settlement. The auditorium accommodates 1,100 seats with

an addition of 540 in the balcony. Besides the mature design technique for theatres,

two salient features should be given more attention.

36
As argued in (Hitchcock & Johnson, 1995), the “International Style” was based on functionalism.
However, unlike some American and European functionalists, who denied all aesthetic principles, the
Style had three aesthetic principles, that is, architecture as volume, regularity, and avoidance of
decoration.
37
Archives of the Second National Archives in Nanjing, file no. 12-2-2429
38
According to Robert FAN Zheng’s letter to me on October 1st, 2004, Lindbohm probably left Fan’s
firm around 1938/1939 just before World War II

262
 One is the entrance space. Based on functional principles, a two-storey high

rotunda was set on the street corner as an impressive entrance from the outside as well

as a transition space inside. It was a transition for circulation. Entering through four

doorways, the audience could immediately recognize the direction. The left lobby led

to the ground floor and the auditorium, while the right to a curved staircase, by which

one could come to the mezzanine floor and the balcony. The rotunda was also a

transition for light which passed through four vertical bands of windows, and was

borrowed by the two opened lobbies and the mezzanine.

Secondly, it was not the “Chinese style” but geometric circular patterns that

served as the main decorative motif. Moreover, the circular motif was largely

achieved by building elements rather than extra decorations. On the exterior, the

dominating circular shape of the rotunda was accompanied by the curved canopy, the

circular pattern of the metal grilles, and the round piers. In the interior, the shape of

the curved staircase was repeated by its fine handrails and continuous planes, and

echoed by curved walls, circular or curved patterns on the ceiling and floor, and round

posts. The circular motif as well as the bright color scheme resulted in smooth

surfaces both outside and inside, and a mobile and weightless feeling (Fig.V-19).

The functional arrangement, the lightness and smoothness, and the avoidance of

applied decoration are all features of the “international style”.39

4.2 Designing the “International Style” in Hong Kong

As mentioned, the “international style” had been widely accepted by clients in

post-war Hong Kong as a politically-safe and economically-cheap way of

39
See footnote 36 above.

263
architectural expression. As a result, Hong Kong became a stronghold of

“international style” architecture. How did Fan develop his modernistic design in

such an encouraging environment in post-war Hong Kong? Aiming to answer this

question, another two projects designed by Fan in Hong Kong are studied.

“Pine Hill” (c.1950, Kowloon)

“Pine Hill” was a small villa designed before 1950.40 As an early case of Fan’s

Hong Kong projects, it clearly showed some new features of his modernistic

responses to the city with its rich natural environment.

One of these new features was to make full use of the natural and artificial

surroundings. The original site was a spur on the south side of Piper’s Hill in a

northern suburb of Kowloon. The building of Tai Po Road cut through its north edge

and left a steep nine-meter retaining wall behind. The site-formation work did not

simply excavate the spur and the retaining wall into a flat site, but made full use of

them. The spur was shaped into nine different levels. The villa crossed both levels

with a one-storey wing on the higher and a two-storey wing on the lower. The two-

storey wing was rotated to define an open south court, from which the owner could

overlook the whole harbor. On the north side, the hill cutting and the retaining wall

along Tai Po Road were incorporated into the plan as a high boundary to protect the

villa from traffic noises and to obtain privacy. The openness of the south side and the

protection of the north side also determined the design of the elevations. Picture

windows, a covered porch way and balcony, and a large glass door were arranged on

the south; while small windows and a glass-block door were on the north.

40
According to Hong Kong and Far East builder,vol.8, no.7, pp.25, Pine Hill (former named Pine Crest)
was designed by Fan, “who recently resumed practice in Hong Kong”. However, its construction
drawings kept in the Building Department of Hong Kong were signed by another firm “WAY AND
HALL”. It is probable because Fan was registered as A.A. in 1950, and the design was done before this,
and needed another A.A. to sign for submission.

264
 Another new feature was the use of local materials. Stone walls in cement mortar

were used on the exterior of the building. Brick walls were for the interior and those

of the service area. A granite finish was used on some parts to express the rustic

character. It is obvious that the material handling was designed to attain not only

economic but also aesthetic objectives (Fig.V-20).

Like the Majestic Theater, functional consideration was at the first place.

Moreover, the main function of privacy and a view of the landscape were achieved by

making use of the artificial and natural surroundings. Unlike the Majestic, even

geometric decoration disappeared. The main aesthetic effect of Pine Hill was

obtained through the use of local materials.

Methodist Church (1961, North Point)

Fan designed the Methodist Church when he was sixty-eight years old.41 As a later

example of his Hong Kong projects, the church showed most of his former design

characteristics and went further.42

Firstly, like Pine Hill, it also made full use of natural surroundings and local

materials. The site was originally in a fan shape with its small-end frontage only six-

meter wide on Cheung Hong Street, and spreading and rising behind till its large-end

of thirty-meter wide and twenty-five meters higher in level. The solution to deal with

such an awkward site was to place flights of staircases at the north front on the

Cheung Hong Street, about sixty steps leading to a courtyard nine meters above the

41
According to Robert FAN Zheng（范政）, Fan’s elder son, who worked with Fan at that time, Fan
was in charge of the design, and the son the project architect. Both of them provided much input into
the design. Fan Zheng even remembers that his father often sat on the original awkward site to
conceive the design (my face-to-face interview with Fan Zheng at City Hall on November 8th, 2006;
his email to me on November 10th, 2007).
42
The Builder, Vol.17, No.5, pp.68-71

265
street level. As a result, the site-formation work was minimized, and a sequence of

spaces from the noisy street to the peaceful church nave was provided. Moreover, this

also achieved a unique main façade echoing the natural hilly landscape, of which the

lower part was made up of stone retaining walls used as the staircases’ handrails.

Secondly, like Majestic Theatre, it also used circular building elements. However,

the circular elements in the church were not for decoration, but justified by the site

and function. A curved wall was used along the eastern site boundary, enclosing some

irregular rooms for offices and a circular main staircase, which rose above the wall.

On the curved wall were various windows, large or small, projected or inset. The

seemingly irregular fenestration was designed according to different interior functions.

Thirdly, it showed some new features that went beyond the previous projects. For

example, more attention was paid to the lighting design. The upper part of the main

façade had two layers: the outer was a front grille in brown and white “Glamorock”;

the inner was a white wall with different colored windows through which colorful

light was available. In addition, controlled natural light shone into the nave through

the glass block skylight placed above the altar, and the ribbon windows along the two

sides of the nave. All these inspired a peaceful atmosphere.

Furthermore, it showed a new trend in structural expression. The reinforced

concrete structure of the nave could be clearly observed. The pillars and main

horizontal beams were projected from the walls both inside and outside. The

secondary beams arranged in triangular shape dominated the aesthetic effects of the

nave (Fig.V-21).

266
267
268
 In conclusion, Fan, as a pioneer Chinese architect, advocated the “international

style”, that is the Modern Movement, as early as the 1930s, when he was in Mainland

China. After migrating to Hong Kong, the city’s hilly landscape, natural environment,

and encouraging attitude towards the “international style” all inspired him to further

develop his modernistic design. The comparison of the three cases shows that his

development was consistent. The two Hong Kong cases inherited the functional basis

of the Shanghai theatre design, but abandoned the geometric decoration. They

developed some common features such as making use of topography and using local

materials as responses to the city’s character. The latest case showed new features in

the consideration of lighting and structural expressions.

5 CHU Pin: From Nationalism to Urbanism

CHU Pin（朱彬） also changed his attitudes towards the “Chinese style” of

architecture but not as radically as Fan Wen Zhao. As mentioned in previous chapters

and above, CHU Pin（朱彬）(Fig.V-22) was the second figure of Kwan Chu & Yang

Architects (基泰工程司, KC&Y). The firm has been regarded as the first top Chinese

firm in Republican China with a high reputation for its “Chinese style” designs.

In fact, “Chinese style” design became the major characteristic of the firm. On

one hand, the first figure KWAN Sung Sing ( 关 颂 声 ), through his personal

relationships with senior KMT officials, received many commissions from the

nationalist government, which were required to be designed in the “Chinese style”.

On the other hand, the third figure YANG Ting Pao (杨廷宝) was a prominent

student of Paul P. Cret at U. Penn., developed his own approach to incorporate the

Beaux-Arts principles into the “Chinese style” designs and became the leading

Chinese architect designing in the style. Chu received the same Beaux-Arts education

at U. Penn. as Yang, and was familiar with Yang’s design strategy through their many

collaborative projects. Therefore, it would not be surprising that Chu himself was an

269
expert in “Chinese style” design, though not as famous as Yang. This could be

proven by his design of the Sun Company in Shanghai in 1935, a high-rise composite

building in Chinese style.

In the 1949 migration, the firm was dispersed, for Kwan moved to Taiwan, Yang

stayed on the Mainland, while Chu was in charge of the branch in Hong Kong. Under

Chu, the branch designed many important projects particularly in Central, including

the Man Yee Building (1954), the Takshing House (1959), and the Lok Hoi Tong

Building (1961). All three were of the same building type, the high-rise composite

building, and located in adjacent city blocks. Such a success should be partly

attributed to the Cantonese background of Kwan and Chu, who had kinsmen long

established in Hong Kong before 1949. More importantly, it was the successful

design of the first Man Yee Building that won Chu a reputation for designing the

composite building in Hong Kong.

What made the Man Yee building successful? Did the success of Man Yee relate

to Chu’s former practices in Mainland China? Did it adopt the “Chinese style” which

used to be the firm’s main character? If not, what was its main character instead? A

comparison between the “Chinese style” Sun Company in Shanghai and the Man Yee

Building in Hong Kong may answer the above questions.

5.1 From the Shanghai Sun Company to the Hong Kong Man Yee Building

The Sun Company (1935, Shanghai)

The Sun Company was designed by Chu in 1935.43 It is selected as the case of

Chu’s Mainland works for comparison with the Man Yee building, not only because

of the similar building type, the high-rise composite building, but also because of its

43
This is according to Chu’s application for the registration of Hong Kong Authorized Architects in
1949, P.R.O. file no. HKRS41-1-774-1.

270
“Chinese style”. Although the “Chinese style” prevailed in government and

monumental buildings in the 1930s in nationalist capitals such as Nanjing and

Guangzhou, it was not commonly adopted in commercial buildings particularly in

Shanghai, China’s most modern city.

The Sun Company used to be one of the top four department stores in Republican

China. Its 1935 premises were located at the corner of Nanjing Road and Tibet Road

in the former British Concession. The site was flat and occupied a whole city block.

The ten-storey building provided for multi-functions with a department store on the

lowest four floors, and offices, entertainment facilities such as restaurants, clubs, a

theater and roof garden above. All these functions were arranged efficiently and were

served by eight sets of stairs along the exterior and two escalators in the middle.

Apart from the functional arrangement, the architects paid much attention to the

external appearance.

The façades along the two main roads were joined by a curve around the corner.

The curved part was treated as the centre of the building’s symmetry by placing the

main entrance on its ground floor and a projected crown on the top. The curved

central section and the two wings made up a long continuous main façade. In order to

break the monotony of the main façade, the design tried to achieve a vertical rhythm

through projecting the wall surfaces between the windows throughout the building

height. The projections around the supportive main pillars were further emphasized,

becoming the dominant vertical elements. And, the spandrels provided applied

vertical decorative lines, producing a subsidiary rhythm. Apart from the base where

black marble was used, the entire main façade was surfaced with light ochre tiles.

Even the spandrel decorations and the edge trims were in the same material but

specially designed. The similarity in texture resulted in a smooth and coherent

surface.

271
 In terms of “Chinese style” design, the inset balconies on the top floor of the two

wings had balustrades, grilles, and architraves in Chinese traditional patterns. They

together made up a series of “Chinese style” units rather than individual skin-deep

decorations (Fig.V-23). It should be noted that similar “Chinese style” units can also

be found in earlier projects designed by Yang Ting Bao, the third figure of the firm,

such as in the Central Athletic Centre (1930). In other words, Chu’s “Chinese style”

design in the Sun Company may have been influenced by Yang (Fig.V-24).

Man Yee Building (1954, Hong Kong)

The Man Yee Building was also a high-rise composite building with a shopping

centre on the ground floor and offices above. It was similar in scale to the Sun

Company, occupying a city block in the Central district. Its north tower was fourteen

storeys, the south tower twelve storeys, and in-between a seven-storey section with a

set-back on the top.

Like the Sun Company, its main exterior façades were controlled by axial

symmetry and a strong vertical composition, but were simpler and did not adopt the

“Chinese style”. Special treatments did not appear on the top, but were concentrated

at eye level, such as the shop front and the canopy.

It appears that the Man Yee Building had fewer functions and a simpler exterior

than the Sun Company. However, it encountered very difficult site conditions. The

site for the Man Yee Building was a long and narrow slope bounded by Des Voeux

Road, Pottinger Street and Queen’s Road. It was more than 100 meters long, thirty

meters wide on the north side of Des Voeux Road, twenty meters wide on the south

side of Queen’s Road, with a six-meter difference between Queen’s Road and Des

Voeux Road. Its four corners met at irregular angles.

272
 Chu responded to the irregular site in the following ways. On the long edge, the

building was divided into three sections. The plan grids were slightly rotated to

separate the structures of the three sections as well as to fit the four unparallel edges.

Limited by the narrow edge, shops on the ground floor and offices above were

arranged linearly, that is, on the two sides of a main corridor.

More importantly, the six-meter difference in the slope was used to form a two-

level ground floor shopping centre. The shopping centre’s upper ground floor was on

the level of Queen’s Road, the lower one on that of Des Voeux Road. The main

corridors on two levels were linked by two escalators capable of handling a flow of

5,000 persons per hour. This were probably the first escalators used in Hong Kong. 44

As a result, the main corridor with the speedy escalators, new shops on two sides, and

a comfortable “shelter” in all weathers, attracted not only customers, but also

pedestrians between the two main roads who used to walk through to Pottinger Street.

In other words, the shopping centre, by contributing an indoor public passage in the

city, encouraged a greater number of potential customers for its shops. In fact, the

numbers of the shops in the centre rose from twenty-six to seventy-eight in only two

years, because of the traffic flow and the consequent economic success (Fig.V-25).

The successful program of the two-level shopping centre connecting by escalators

was reported by The Builder as “a shopping arcade…although there are now a number

of buildings in [the] course of erection which incorporate this feature, the original idea

for commercial buildings was introduced in the Man Yee Building”. 45 In fact,

“shopping arcades” did appear in Hong Kong long before the 1950s, for example, the

Beaconsfield Arcade built in 1880 (Purvis, 1985, p.26). However, it was in the Man

44
The Builder, Vol.13, No.1, pp.9-11
45
See footnote 44 above.

273
Yee Building that the idea of the “shopping arcade” began to be established in the

context of Hong Kong’s cityscape, which is hilly, high-density, and heavily

commercialized.

5.2 An Urbanism Contribution to Hong Kong’s Cityscape

Was the “shopping arcade” program that Chu originated in the Man Yee Building

adopted in later projects as The Builder reported? How did it contribute to Hong

Kong’s cityscape?

This research conducted field trips in the Central district, particularly around the

Man Yee Building site. It is found that the “shopping arcade” program was adopted

by commercial projects built on similar site conditions after the Man Yee Building.

For example, in the Central Building (1957), the ground floor arcade connected

Queens’ Road and Pedder Street, and led to the above-floor arcades via escalators. In

the Lok Hoi Tong Building (1961) also designed by Chu, the ground floor arcade led

to the entrance lobby of the Queen’s theater by escalators at the rear of the building.

In this case, it was a cinema audience rather than pedestrians that were drawn through

the arcade. Moreover, in the Two Chinachem Plaza (1960s), the arcade was on the

first floor, with one end linked to Des Voeux Road by escalators, and the other end to

the skywalk system above Connaught Road (Fig.V-26).

It appears that more and more buildings in the Central district preferred to have

their indoor public passages connected to main roads, skywalks, subways, or other

buildings, via “urban connectors”46 such as escalators, staircases, bridges, decks, or

other forms of infrastructure. And, they together have grown into a multi-directional

and multi-dimensional network. This has become a main characteristic of the city,

particularly of the Central district, termed by architectural historian as “multiple

46
Yim: “Contemporary urban sensibility”, in (Hope, Ryan, & Rocco Design Limited., 2002)

274
layers” (Muramatsu et al., 1997) (Fig.V-27). This has also become a main urbanism

concept upheld by Hong Kong’s contemporary architects. Just as Rocco S.K. Yim

demonstrated, the “urban connectors” knits together the urban fabric both horizontally

and vertically with high fluidity – a three-dimensional urban matrix, which shapes his

architecture.47

The Man Yee Building itself is important evidence for this city character or

urbanism concept. In 1999, the old Man Yee Building was replaced by its new

premises. The new Man Yee has three floors of underground car park, four floors of

shopping arcade, and a thirty-one-storey high office tower. Compared with the old

building, most aspects of the old premises were improved, for example, the building

height and technology such as side-core structure and solar-reflective double-glazed

windows, etc. However, it keeps the two-level ground floor shopping arcade program

to show respect to the original building and to the city’s character (Fig.V-26).

In conclusion, Chu had developed extensive experience in the design of large

scale, high rise, and multiple function buildings in Mainland China, which could be

proven by his design of the Sun Company in Shanghai in 1935. Therefore, after

migrating to Hong Kong, he was capable of designing similar projects such as the

Man Yee Building. Moreover, Chu gradually transformed his design strategy for this

building type from nationalism to urbanism. In the Sun Company, the design focus

was placed on the external appearance, which incorporated the “Chinese style”, the

firm’s main design signature, in the high-rise commercial building. However, in the

Man Yee Building, the focus was shifted to the internal lay-out, which created the

“shopping arcade” program as the firm’s new emphasis as well as the starting point of

the main character of the cityscape.

47
Ibid.

275
276
277
 6 LUKE Him Sau: Beyond Stylistic Paradox

With the intensified nationalization process, the “Chinese style” of architecture

was the theme of interest among Chinese architects in the 1930s. Some of them such

as Liang and Su, advocated nationalistic ideals and designed in the style; while others

like Fan, embraced modernism and refused to practice it. It appears that “Chinese

style” had become a stylistic paradox in the relationship between self and others,

China (or the East) and the West, or tradition and modern.48

LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受) (Fig.II-15) was among the few who maintained a

neutral stance towards the “Chinese style” of architecture. Unlike Su, Chang, Fan and

Chu, the four migrant architects we have studied, who were all educated in the US,

Luke received architectural training at the A.A. School in London in the late 1920s.

The different educational background may have given him a different perspective. In

a 1936 article, Luke and his partner Channcey Wu Kingkei（吴景奇）declared their

attitude towards the stylistic paradox. This article was published in one of the special

issues of the Journal Chinese Architect, organized by the Society of Chinese

Architects to introduce their members’ works. As the Vice President of the society in

1935 and the chief architect of the Bank of China Head Office Building Department,

Luke selected seven building types that he and his partners had designed, and wrote

the article as an introduction. They demonstrated that they did not care which style

they used, whether Chinese, international, or eclectic. It was the specific problems

and challenges of individual projects that were their main focus (Luke & Wu 1936b).

As mentioned in Chapter Two, Luke had an idealistic devotion to “China”.

Therefore, it is not be surprising that he would design in the “Chinese style”. In fact,

his “Chinese style” designs included the Bank of China Head Office Building on the

48
For the discussion on the stylistic paradox, see “modernity and nationality: attitudes concerning the
modernization of Chinese architecture”, in (Lai, 2007), pp.181-293. Also see (Rowe & Kuan, 2002).

278
Bund in Shanghai in 1935 (co-operated with P&T). As the only “Chinese style” of

architecture on the Bund, the building stood out from the Bund’s extreme

architectural displays in the 1930s with its distinctive curved Chinese roof and other

traditionally patterned decorations such as stone grilles. It has thus been esteemed as

one of the most important examples of “Chinese style” of architecture in Republican

China. However, this important building was not listed among the above-mentioned

seven building types that Luke selected to illustrate their attitude, although its image

appeared on the back over of the issue. This is probably because the “Chinese style”

of the bank was a requirement of the client, rather than a response to specific design

problems Luke referred to. In fact, the client, the Bank of China, was the central bank

of the nationalist government. Like other government agencies, the bank required its

new Head Office Building in 1935 to be built in the “Chinese style” (Fig.II-16). 49

In post-1949 Hong Kong, most migrant architects ceased to use “Chinese style”

design. Some of them such as Su, as mentioned earlier, deliberately did so because of

his strong nationalistic ideals. Others preferred to do so due to post-war political

sensitivity. However, Luke was one of the few migrant architects, who designed

“Chinese style” projects in Hong Kong. For example, he designed the chapel at the

Regional Seminary of South China in Aberdeen in 1955.50 Located on a quiet and

green ground, the chapel had both “Chinese style” exterior and interior, and still holds

Mass everyday up to the present. He also proposed a “Chinese style” Memorial Hall

for the South Sea Textile Co. Ltd. in around 1966. However, the proposal was

49
Before Luke’s participation, P&T proposed an earlier plan for the bank, which was a Gothic edifice.
However, the board of the bank disapproved the Gothic plan and called for the “Chinese style” due to
economic and political considerations (Zou, 2007).
50
The discovery of the chapel owes much to Ms. LUK Men-Chong (陆曼庄), Luke’s granddaughter.
After we got to contact with each other at the end of 2006, Men-Chong made great efforts to discover
the facts about Luke’s architectural career. She found old office documents which gave clues to the
design of the chapel as well as other Hong Kong projects. Then, she also conducted field trips to check
the current conditions of each project, and informed me about the discovery of the chapel.

279
abandoned probably because of the social disturbance in Hong Kong in 1967, which

led to Luke leaving for the US that year.

In the above two Hong Kong projects, the “Chinese style” designs may also have

been required by the clients. According to Ng,51 churches built in 1930s Hong Kong

are characterized by the influence of Chinese architecture, including the Regional

Seminary of South China (华南总修院, currently known as the Holy Spirit Seminary

圣神修院) founded in 1931. When the new chapel was proposed in 1955, the

seminary asked the architect to follow their tradition and build the chapel in the

“Chinese style” (Fig.V-28). 52 As mentioned, such a tradition was also shared by

missionary buildings in Mainland China from the late nineteenth century. As far as

the South Sea Textile Co. Ltd. (南海纱厂), it was owned by one of the Shanghai

spinners who relocated to Hong Kong around in the late 1940s, and developed into

one of the largest and most advanced textile factories in Hong Kong in the 1960s.

Although its factories were all modern buildings for economic and functional reasons,

its memorial buildings may have adopted the “Chinese style” for Chinese identity

(Fig.V-29). The Shanghai spinner may have asked Luke to be the architect because of

his fame in Shanghai with his “Chinese style” Bank of China Head Office.

It appears that Luke did not deliberately adopt the “Chinese style” for nationalistic

idealism in pre-1949 Mainland China, 53 nor reject it because of the political

environment in post-1949 Hong Kong. He practiced the style mainly because of the

51
See Ng: “Religious Architecture”, in (Chan & Hong Kong Institute of Architects., 2006)
52
According to Father Naylor at Wah Yan College, Luke was specifically asked to design a chapel in
Chinese style in keeping with the Chinese style Regional Seminary. The interview with Father Naylor
was conducted by Ms. LUK Men-Chong (陆曼庄), Luke’s granddaughter. I thank Men-chong for
sharing with me this information in her email on December 14th, 2007.
53
Unlike Su, who highly valued the nationalist KMT government, Luke was alert to the vast
bureaucratic corruption of the KMT government, which prevented him from going to Taiwan in 1949.
This is according to the interview with Luk Shing Chark (陆承泽), Luke’s middle son, on December
13th, 2006. See (Wang, 2007).

280
requirements of his clients. This is why he did not include the Bank of China Head

Office Building as the key works to illustrate his attitude that it was not style but

specific design problems that were the focus of his designs. What were the specific

problems he referred to in the 1936 article? After migrating to Hong Kong, were

there any new design challenges? The following subsections will separately study the

above two questions.

5.2 Bank of China Buildings in Shanghai and Site Problems

In the 1936 special issue of Chinese Architect, Luke and Wu explained the criteria

for selecting the seven building types which illustrated their attitude. “They may not

be our best works, but each point to different design problems”.54 Four of the seven

types were Bank of China buildings, among which two were located in Shanghai.55

These two cases will be studied to examine the design problems involved.

Yates Road Bank and Apartment, 1934

The problem that Luke encountered in the design of the Yates Road bank and

apartment building was an irregular site. It was a very narrow site with the long

eastern edge a plain curve boundary, facing Yates Road, and joining two main roads

on the north and south. Moreover, the irregular site should accommodate a two-

storey bank below and seven-storey apartment above.

54
See in (Luke & Wu 1936a). The original words were in Chinese:“七种不同性质的作品，……并
不是我们认为最满意的代表作品，不过它们每个引出的各种问题”
55
The seven types of works that Luke selected in Chinese Architect, Issue Twenty-six, are:
Bank of China bank and apartment building, Yates Road, Shanghai, 1934
Bank of China warehouse department, North Suzhou Brook, Shanghai, 1933
Bank of China bank buildings, Suzhou & Nanjing
Bank of China dormitory buildings, Qingdao
Tai Char Bou Country Hospital, Shanghai
Residential works, Shanghai & Nanjing, 1935
Interior designs, apartment, dining room, & club.

281
 According to Luke, more effort was made to separate different circulation routes

within the narrow and irregular site, for example the circulation between the bank and

the apartment, and between residents and servants. Two entrances of the bank were

placed on the ground floor at the two ends of the Yates Road. There were also two

entrances for the apartments. One was adjacent to the bank entrance at the north end

of the Yates Road, serving a four-room flat on each upper floor. Another shared a

doorway with the servant entrance at the rear of the building, serving two flats of two-

rooms and three-rooms on each upper floor.

On the exterior, the main façade on Yates Road was a curved wall along the

original site boundary. The curved shape was emphasized by other curved elements

on the wall, such as the projected wall capping and the continuous window lines.

This also resulted in a general horizontality. Although the apartment arrangement

inside was varied, the spacing of apartment windows outside was standardized. The

bank windows were adjusted to the same rhythm. This composition could be justified

by structural regularity. Contrasting with the horizontal and regular façade were

verticals of lifts, stairwells and wall piers at the two ends of the façade (Fig.V-30).

The lightness, regularity, and lack of applied verticalism marked the building with

the “international style”. The “international style” appearance was not the purpose of

design, but a response to the site condition and a result of functional arrangement and

structural regularity.

North Suzhou Brook Warehouse Department, 1933

The design problem of the North Suzhou Brook warehouse department was also

related to site conditions. The site was located on the northern shore of the Suzhou

Brook, and adjacent to existing three-storey warehouses on two sides. That is to say,

the bearing capacity of the site was poor because of water, and varied because of the

282
pressure of the existing buildings. In fact, when constructing the basement floor, it

was found that the piles leaned heavily inwards.

According to Luke, this project taught them big lessons about the significance of

engineering knowledge and co-operation with contractors. With the help of engineers

and contractors, the architect further studied the foundation problems concerning sand,

silt and neighboring buildings. They adopted the raft foundation system with masses

of driven timber piles covered by a thick reinforced concrete raft.56 They also created

particular ways of driving piles to prevent the inclination. For example, they initiated

the idea of driving timber piles from different angles, and to drive them array after

array, rather than pile after pile. They also added special drainage and waterproof

layers under the raft to protect the basement from water penetration (Fig.V-31).

Similarly to the Yates Road bank and apartment building, the warehouse

department had a simple, regular and horizontal “international style” exterior. Again,

for Luke, the design focus was not the style but the engineering and construction

techniques to build the foundation.

Unlike the “Chinese style” Head Office on the Bund, both the Yates Road bank

and the Suzhou Brook warehouse were in the “international style”. Although all of

them were Bank of China buildings in Shanghai, and the Head Office was the most

famous, Luke did not select the Head Office, but the other two cases to illustrate his

attitude. He stated little about exterior designs and paid most attention to the design

problems, which, in these two cases, were related to site conditions. In fact, the

56
The draft foundation system was particularly designed to deal with the site condition of Shanghai.
The city is sited on the ground of sand and silt with poor bearing capacity. Before the use of raft
foundation, building heights had been limited to three storeys. According to Purvis (1985, p.55), it was
John Ritchie, a partner of P&T, who decided to approach MIT with the problem. The raft foundation
proposed by MIT was proved successful by P&T’s projects along the Bund, including the Bank of
China Head Office.

283
exterior “international style” was a result of functional arrangement and structural

regularity.

6.2 Wah Yan College Chapel in Hong Kong and Climatic Challenges

In 1930s Shanghai, Luke often encountered design problems related to site

conditions and his solutions to the site problems created impressive and imaginative

modern designs. After migrating to Hong Kong, were there any new challenges for

Luke? If so, did the challenges result in new achievements in his designs?

The old documents of Luke’s Hong Kong office 57 included a thirty-three-page

draft paper on tropical architecture in the humid zone which is heavily affected by

climatic factors such as heat, surroundings, sun, orientation, ventilation, fenestration,

and lighting. It is also found to have many sun charts and relevant data for Hong

Kong drawn by hand. Both the paper and the charts were presented in a similar

scientific way, and their contents well supplement each other. It appears that they

were done by the same author who possibly could have been Luke.58 Even if they

were not done by Luke himself, the importance of the climatic topic for Luke

becomes evident by the fact that the documents were well organized and carefully

kept. This could be also proven by my interview with Luke’s son, Luk Shing Chark,

who remembers that climate and art were the main aspects when Luke comments on

57
As mentioned, Ms. LUK Men-Chong (陆曼庄), Luke’s granddaughter made great efforts to discover
the facts about Luke’s architectural career. She found old documents about Luke and his Hong Kong
office, such as client lists, drawings, certificates, resumes, paintings, poetry collections, photos,
personal letters, diaries, notes, a paper, etc. The author would like to take every opportunity to thank
Men-Chong and the Luke family for sharing the documents, which contribute greatly to this research.
58
It is hard to recognize the author of the paper, for it was written with a typewriter and has no
signature. However, the charts were drawn by hand, which must have been produced by Luke’s office.
If the paper and the chart were done by the same author, then the paper should also be a product of
Luke or his office. One of the charts was dated April, 1949. Therefore, it would be unlikely that the
author was Luke’s elder son or the younger son, both of whom were trained in engineering or
architecture from the 1950s.

284
architectural designs. 59 Moreover, Luke’s Hong Kong projects demonstrated his

attention to climatic factors.

Wah Yan College Chapel, 1958

Among hundreds of Luke’s Hong Kong projects, the design of the Wah Yan

College Chapel showed particular attention to Hong Kong’s climatic factors. Thus

the case is selected to study how climatic factors acted as the new challenges for

Luke’s designs in Hong Kong.

According to Father Naylor, who has been teaching at the college for forty

years, 60 Father Dargan was the Rector of the College in the 1950s, and was

responsible for building the new chapel in 1958. He asked the architect to build a

grand chapel that would be more impressive than St. Paul's Chapel in Macau, and

would be cool on the hottest days in summer.

The client’s requirements concerning climatic factors echoed the architect’s

interest, and inspired him to create distinctive architectural features. First of all, the

chapel was placed on a high platform overlooking Waterloo Road. A long, straight

flight of stairs led directly to the front courtyard. The façade was treated as a wide,

high, deep and rectilinear narthex with three doorways. This not only formed a grand

entrance, but also provided shade.

59
According to my interview with LUK Shing Chark (陆承泽), Luke’s middle son, on December 13th,
2006, when replying to my question “do you remember any comments from your father on architecture
or designs?”, he said “my father considered architectural design as a comprehensive process, mainly
including aspects of climate and art.”
60
The interview with Father Naylor was conducted by Ms. LUK Men-Chong (陆曼庄), Luke’s
granddaughter. She shared with me the interview results in her letter on November 14th, 2007. Also see
Father Naylor’s website for his writing on the chapel at:
http://www.hnaylor.net/docs/Chapter%2024%20St.%20Ignatius%20Chapel.html

285
 Secondly, the inner chapel was enclosed by two layer screen walls. The outer

wall had a white skeleton of supports filled with pale red screen blocks. The

secondary supports were in the shape of cross, and the screen blocks had transverse

openings of “circle” or “cross” pattern. This on one hand highlighted the religious

motif, and on the other, admitted air but excluded glare and radiation. The internal

wall had nine entrances, and all the doors and the windows above could be opened for

ventilation. The wall was made of a wooden frame and opaque glass and horizontal

louvre panels. This further reflected and filtered the light from the outer wall screen

blocks. The public space between the two walls was a high and continuous passage

surrounding the inner chapel, forming a corridor for wind and light. Through the two

screen walls and the space in-between, cooler air and gentle sunlight washed into the

inner chapel.

Thirdly, the inner chapel had a large space to house 500 people, high ceilings, and

twenty-seven ventilators with glass-block skylights in the roof. The vents were

arranged in three rows above the nave and the two sides. There was also a glass-

block skylight above the altar. Apparently, the vents again encouraged ventilation,

while the skylight gave the chapel controlled natural light (Fig.V-32).

The above architectural features fulfilled Father Dargan’s requirements for a

grand and cool chapel. Functionally, the two-layer screen walls and vents in the roof

made up a cooling system using natural ventilation which enabled the chapel to avoid

the use of air-conditioning until 1996.61 Aesthetically, the grandure was achieved by

the stairs, the front façade, the religious motif, and the lighting effects. Unlike the

“Chinese style” in the Regional Seminary of South China, it was these architectural

features that rendered the Wah Yan College’s distinctive character.

61
According to Father Naylor, “air-conditioning was introduced in 1996, to bring it (the chapel) in line
with many churches that already had it, and the general life style of Hong Kong.” Also see the website
at: http://www.hnaylor.net/docs/Chapter%2024%20St.%20Ignatius%20Chapel.html

286
 Moreover, the above features were consistent with the contents of the draft paper.

For example, as far as lighting was concerned, the paper stated:

“The solution for day lighting and ventilation in a hot-humid climate is

always a conflicting one. On one hand, the need for ventilation calls for

larger window openings, on the other, the necessity to avoid glare and

radiation into the room requires smaller and well guarded openings…The

ideal solution is, in the direction of the sun, it should be well sheltered

from glare with light filtering through vegetation or screens and with

abundant air, for ventilation continues to be necessary, no sharp or burning

light at close range. And a large horizontal opaque louvre…a large

horizontally pivoted shutter…the sliding screens…Each of these, when

used, has to be considered carefully as regards to its merit of cutting out

glare, radiation and allowing at the same time for ventilation.” 62

In conclusion, trained in Europe and having a distinctive personality, Luke’s

design focus went beyond the stylistic paradox and dwelt on specific design problems

of individual projects. He had excellent skills for designing the “Chinese style” of

architecture in both Mainland China and Hong Kong according to clients’

requirement. However, it could be proven by his writings and designs in 1930s

Shanghai and post-war Hong Kong, that he paid more attention to place-specific

factors such as site and climate. And these considerations helped him to create

architecture of distinction both functionally and aesthetically, without using the

“Chinese style”.

62
Unpublished draft paper, probably by Luke, p.32.

287
288
289
290
291
 7 Summary

To summarize this chapter, the 1949 migration was an important event in

transforming the Chinese identity of the migrant architects. Before the migration,

most of them shared a patriotic sentiment towards “China” stimulated by foreign

invasions from without and national reforms from within. Some of them once

practiced the “Chinese style” of architecture promoted by the Chinese nationalist

officials and architects. However, after the migration, they had to respond to the post-

war political and economic situation in Hong Kong, which remained a British colony,

kept aloof from political identity expressions, and widely accepted the “international

style” in architecture.

Based on the review of the making of the “Chinese style” of architecture in

Republican China, five migrant architects are chosen for case studies in order to

examine their changing attitudes. SU Gin Djih（徐敬直）, although he ceased to

practice the “Chinese style” of architecture in Hong Kong, wrote a book to express his

nationalistic architectural ideal. Hong Kong was deliberately ignored in the book

because of his nationalistic perspective, but provided him an outsider stance to

critically review the development of “Chinese style” of architecture in post-war

Mainland China and Taiwan. CHANG Chao Kang （张肇康）, with rich practical

experience in Hong Kong, Taiwan and New York, returned to Mainland China after

1979 to research, teach, and practice. He also wrote a book to address his regionalist

architectural ideal based on his investigations on Chinese vernacular architecture.

Robert FAN Wen Zhao（ 范 文 照 ） abandoned the “Chinese style” and radically

changed to advocate the “international style” as early as in 1930s Shanghai. His

modernistic design achieved consistent development in Hong Kong as a response to

the city’s hilly landscape and post-war economic environment. CHU Pin（朱彬）

shifted the main character of the firm KC&Y from the “Chinese style” in Mainland

China to the “shopping arcade” in Hong Kong. The urbanism “shopping arcade”

292
program was initiated by Chu, widely accepted by local architectural professionals,

and contributed to a multi-layer cityscape. LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受) went beyond the

stylistic paradox and paid more attention to place-specific factors such as the site

problems in Shanghai, and the climatic challenges in Hong Kong. These factors

inspired him to create architecture of distinction both functionally and aesthetically.

It is proven that, after the 1949 migration, the five migrant architects transformed

their attitudes towards the “Chinese style” of architecture differently. On one hand,

the transformation was shaped by their personality, educational background, and

practical experience in Mainland China. It appears that the education of the Beaux-

Arts and Bauhaus systems was one of the main reasons for the differences between

LIANG Si Cheng (梁思成) and CHANG Chao Kang (张肇康). The European

educational background in the AA School of Architecture enabled LUKE Him Sau

(陆谦受) to develop an attitude beyond stylistic concerns. On the other hand, the

transformation was inspired by different aspects of Hong Kong’s post-war

environment, such as political sensitivity, economic requirement, hilly landscape,

dense cityscape, regional characteristics, international influence, etc. As a result, they

initiated new perspectives of Chinese identity in architecture, away from that of the

nation-state and towards those of region and city.

293
 Conclusion

This research contains five chapters.

Chapter One considers the main subjects of this research, “the migrant architects”.
They are selected from the entire group of Chinese architects who emerged as modern
professionals in China during the late Qing Dynasty. Three conditions are proposed to
define “the migrant architects”: all were Chinese, had professional experience in both
pre-1949 Mainland China and in post-1949 Hong Kong. At least sixty-seven architects
have been discovered fitting these conditions.

After deciding who are the migrant architects, the chapter analyzes basic information
on individual architects reaching a conclusion about their collective characteristics. It is
found that similar to general Chinese architects, the migrant architects had diverse
educational backgrounds, with a high proportion trained abroad, particularly in the US.
On the other hand, their educational background shows a stronger British influence and a
higher proportion with an engineering-base. Their native places reveal a strong Hong
Kong background and an overwhelming Cantonese ancestry.

Chapter Two highlights the main event of this research, “the 1949 migration”. It is a
particular movement of the migrant architects within the building dynamics of the entire
group of Chinese architects. Up to the late 1940s, Chinese architects practiced and
moved dynamically among China’s modern cities including Hong Kong, driven by
economic factors, political shifts, and threats of wars. From the point of view of network
theory, the pre-1949 building dynamics of Chinese architects suggests the existence of an
architectural nexus in Republican China. Moreover, the pre-1949 movements of the
migrant architects between Mainland China and Hong Kong substantiate that Hong Kong
used to be a major node of the China nexus.

However, after 1949, the Mainland-Hong Kong movements had been largely
suspended for three decades, due to the establishment of the PRC regime in 1949 and the

294
closure of the Sino-British border in 1950. Just before the three-decade suspension, the
1949 migration took place. The sixty-seven migrant architects left Mainland China, and
came to settle down in Hong Kong. By analyzing the timing of their departure, it appears
that the rising power of the CCP was one of the dominant forces that caused the 1949
migration. Literature review and case studies show that Hong Kong was chosen as the
destination because of its ease of entry, Cantonese background, existing business
connections, and neutral political stance between the conflicting extremes of Mainland
China and Taiwan. The case studies on individual architects also discover devotion to
“China” as a distinctive feature of the Chinese migration.

From here on, this research goes on to study the migrant architects’ later career in
post-1949 Hong Kong. Chapter Three focuses on the theme of “profession”,
investigating how the arrival of the migrant architects influenced the transformation of
the architectural profession in Hong Kong. The chapter initially compares the profession
existing in Mainland China and Hong Kong before 1949. The comparison reveals
differences in three aspects, that is, professional sinicization, identification and
organization. The chapter continues to examine the three aspects of the host profession
in post-war Hong Kong. It finds that the response of the migrant architects to the
differences led to the reform of the host profession in related areas.

First of all, the arrival of the migrant architects resulted in a rise in the status of the
Chinese, breaking through the pre-war Western domination. Secondly, facing the
growing architect-engineer debate in the mid-1950s, the migrant architects contributed to
the identification of the architectural profession. Those migrant architects with
architectural backgrounds tried to found the HKSA in 1956 and appealed for the AA
registration amendment in 1957 in order to differentiate architects from engineers. At the
same time, those with engineering backgrounds tried to tackle the tension inside the
HKSA between “pure” architects and engineering-based AA, and to build connections
between different professional bodies, in order to address multidisciplinarity.

295
 Chapter Four concentrates on the topic of “practice”, examining how the migrant
architects re-established professional and practical connections in the local market, and
how their practices contributed to architectural development in post-war Hong Kong.
The chapter begins with a review of the political, economic and social conditions as well
as related building activities in post-war Hong Kong. It finds that the arrival of millions
of Mainland immigrants, both entrepreneurs and lower income refugees, provided new
impetus for post-war urban development.

Based on the above background review, the chapter further conducts professional
networks and client relations studies. It is found that the migrant architects successfully
re-established their practices in Hong Kong through building a wider ranging
professional network, and developing client relations in the public, private, and
overlapping sectors. During this process, their former professional partnerships were
largely preserved and their old client relations with Mainland background were resumed.
In the private sector, they continued to co-operate with their old clients such as the
Shanghai spinners, bankers, contractors, as well as the Shanghai branches of Cantonese
commercial companies who were the upper level of Mainland entrepreneurs. The private
development they engaged in supplied post-war economic transformation and growth. In
the public and overlapping sector, they were awarded public works by the government
and private charitable organizations to meet the great demand for public housing, schools,
churches, welfare centres, etc., which were generated by the influx of lower income
Mainland refugees. The public works they designed fulfilled the government’s social
programme reforms. As a result, their practices contributed greatly to post-war
architectural development through the design of large-quantity and high-quality projects
of various types.

Chapter Five studies the issue of “identity”, trying to find whether the 1949
migration changed the migrant architects’ sense of being Chinese displayed in their
architecture. The chapter first reviews the history of Chinese nationalism and the
“Chinese style” of architecture. It appears that in the context of Republican China,
Chinese architects’ attitudes towards the “Chinese style” which represented the Chinese

296
nationalistic ideal, made up an important part of their Chinese identifications in
architecture. Through either advocating or criticizing the style, they showed a patriotic
sentiment towards “China” stimulated by foreign invasions, and the passion to revive
Chinese architecture. The chapter examines five migrant architects, all of whom held
typical attitudes towards the “Chinese style” of architecture and once designed projects in
the style.

Moreover, after the 1949 migration, the five migrant architects’ attitudes were largely
transformed by Hong Kong’s post-war environment. SU Gin-Djih（徐敬直） reacted to
the post-war political sensitivity and ignored Hong Kong in his book that expressed his
nationalistic architectural ideal. CHANG Chao Kang （ 张 肇 康 ）grew in regional
responsiveness through Hong Kong practices, which became the basis for his later
research on Chinese vernacular architecture. FAN Wen Zhao（范文照） enjoyed the
prevailing “international style” architecture in Hong Kong and consistently developed his
modernistic design strategy. CHU Pin（朱彬） adapted to the high-dense cityscape and
initiated the urbanism “shopping arcade” program, which was the starting point of Hong
Kong’s “multi-layer” city character. LUKE Him Sau (陆谦受) answered to climatic
challenges in Hong Kong and created designs of distinction both functionally and
aesthetically. Their different 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.

The following will further emphasize three aspects of significance of this research.

1 Hong Kong Architectural History

First of all, this research contributes to the history of Hong Kong architecture in the
post-war period.

As stated in Chapter One, one of the three conditions that identify “the migrant
architects” is that they practiced in post-1949 Hong Kong. All of the migrant architects

297
with three exceptions registered as Hong Kong “Authorized Architects”. “Authorized
Architects” (AA), currently known as “Authorized Persons” (AP), are the core members
of the architectural professionals in Hong Kong. The migrant architects made up a large
proportion of the Hong Kong AA in the post-war period. 1 Moreover, forty-nine percent
of them were born, trained, or practiced in Hong Kong before 1949. Therefore, the study
of the migrant architects is, to some extent a study of an important group of Hong Kong
architects. In other words, many Hong Kong architects who practiced in the post-war
period came from Mainland China.

Moreover, Chapters Three, Four and Five respectively study three main aspects of
Hong Kong architectural history. Focusing on “profession”, Chapter Three not only
compares the architectural profession in Hong Kong and Mainland China before 1949,
but also examines the professional sinicization, identification and organization in Hong
Kong after 1949. This contributes to the history of architectural professionalization in
Hong Kong.

Chapter Four observes architectural “practice” in Hong Kong from the point of view
of client relations study. It proposes to classify building development into three sectors:
the private, the public, and the overlapping sectors according to their clients. More than
200 projects designed by the migrant architects from the late 1940s to the early 1970s are
classified and systematically presented. This sets precedents for relating individual
building developments to the macro political, economic and social background of post-
war Hong Kong, and for building up a database for the conservation of Hong Kong’s
modern architectural heritage.

Chapter Five highlights the Chinese “identity” in architecture in Hong Kong. Hong
Kong has a majority Chinese population, of which most are Mainland migrants. Migrant
architects are included in this group. The chapter selects five migrant architects, who
once designed the “Chinese style” of architecture representing the Chinese nationalistic

1
From 1949 to 1959, the average annual number of AA is 103, of which sixty-two percent are the migrant
architects. From 1949 to 1969, the average annual number is 164 and the migrant architects forty percent.
And, from 1949 to 1979, the average annual number is 232 and the migrant architects twenty-eight percent.

298
ideal. It is found that after the 1949 migration, they changed their attitudes towards the
“Chinese style” and responded differently to Hong Kong’s post-war environment. Their
responses imply a multiplicity of Chinese identifications in architecture away from
nation-state and towards region and city. These identifications enrich the understanding
of the Hong Kong identity in the architectural field.

2 Mainland-Hong Kong Architectural Connections

Secondly, this research helps to build architectural connections between Mainland

China and Hong Kong.

The most evident connections were the movements of the migrant architects between
Mainland China and Hong Kong. As discussed in Chapter Two, from the point of view
of network theory, their movements and business connections serve as invisible links to
connect Hong Kong with China’s other modern cities. Their pre-1949 movements
substantiate the premise that Hong Kong used to be a major node in the architectural
nexus in Republican China. The 1949 migration was a special movement. On one hand it
was followed by a three-decade suspension of the movements; on the other hand it was
the largest and most important movement by then. During the 1949 migration, all the
sixty-seven migrant architects came to Hong Kong together with other building
professionals such as engineers and contractors, together with millions of Mainland
immigrants who were their former and potential clients. In other words, although new
movements were suspended after 1949, the Mainland-Hong Kong connections have been
kept because of the migrant architects and their later activities in post-war Hong Kong.

Other Mainland-Hong Kong connections are drawn by highlighting the dual

background of the migrant architects. In Chapters One and Two, when analyzing their
pre-1949 Mainland experience, those facts related with Hong Kong are emphasized. The
finding shows that forty-eight percent of the migrant architects were either born or
trained, or practiced in Hong Kong before 1949. In Chapters Three, Four, and Five,
when investigating their post-1949 Hong Kong experience, the pre-1949 Mainland

299
background is kept in mind. Chapter Three shows that the migrant architects’ Mainland
experience of professionalization helped to reform the host profession in Hong Kong.
Chapter Four finds that their Mainland professional partnerships and client relationships
were the foundation for the re-establishment of their practices in Hong Kong. Their
designing for Mainland entrepreneurs in private development supplied Hong Kong’s
economic transformation, while their building for Mainland refugees in public works
fulfilled the government’s social reforms. Chapter Five reveals that their Mainland
experience in Chinese nationalism and the “Chinese style” of architecture encouraged
them to pursue a Chinese identity in architecture. Inspired by different aspects of Hong
Kong’s post-war environment, they initiated new perspectives in Chinese identity away
from nation-state and towards region and city.

3 A Bifurcated History

Finally, it is suggested that the study of the migrant architects in Hong Kong after
1949 can offer rich materials for a bifurcated history to critically re-think the mainstream
history of modern Chinese architecture (中国近代建筑史) in the PRC. The bifurcated
history, as an important continuation of the “modern” period after 1949, helps to
demonstrate a different development from that of socialist China. Moreover, it grants us
some distance to re-think the PRC mainstream researchers’ over-attention given to
returned Chinese architects, important buildings or cities, and the nationalistic ideal.

To reduce the bias in favor of Chinese architects trained overseas in architecture, this
research pays equal attention to the sixty-seven migrant architects with various
educational backgrounds. Chapter One finds that the migrant architects had a diverse
educational background with a high proportion of engineering training and British
influence. Chapter Three reveals the different contributions made by the architecturally
and engineering-based migrant architects to the professionalization in Hong Kong. Those
who were architecturally-based tried to found the HKSA in 1956, and to appeal for the
AA registration amendment in 1957, in order to differentiate architects from engineers.
On the other hand, those who were engineering-based tried to tackle the tension inside

300
the HKSA between “pure” architects and engineering-based AA, and to build
connections between different professional bodies, in order to address multidisciplinarity.
And, Chapter Five tries to address the different attitudes held by Beaux-Arts trained and
Bauhaus trained migrant architects when expressing Chinese identity in architecture. It
appears that the education of the Beaux-Arts and Bauhaus systems was one of the main
reasons for the differences between LIANG Si Cheng (梁思成) and CHANG Chao Kang
(张肇康). The education in the AA School of Architecture enabled LUKE Him Sau (陆
谦受) to develop an attitude beyond stylistic concerns.

To lessen the over-attention given to individual architects, buildings, and cities, the
focus of this research is not the individual subject, but the relationship between subjects.
Chapter One examines the primary data of the sixty-seven migrant architects together.
Statistical analyses are conducted on the basic information such as native place and
educational backgrounds. By doing so, some collective characteristics are found showing
that they had an overwhelming Cantonese ancestry and a diversity of educational
background. Chapter Five compares works of individual migrant architects between the
pre-1949 Mainland and post-1949 Hong Kong projects, in order to find their changing
attitudes and new development after migrating to Hong Kong. It also compares works of
different migrant architects to stress individuality. Moreover, Chapter Two applies the
point of view of network theory to examine the migrant architects’ pre-1949 building
dynamics between Hong Kong and China’s other cities, as well as the 1949 migration.
The pre-1949 movements substantiate that Hong Kong used to be a major node of the
architectural nexus in Republican China. The 1949 migration as the most important
Mainland-Hong Kong connection proves the bifurcation of the history.

To balance the over-emphasis on the national identity as well as on those government

or monumental projects in the “Chinese style”, this research is particularly attentive to the
multiplicity of Chinese identifications in architecture that the migrant architects
developed in Hong Kong’s post-war environment; and to various types of social welfare
projects that they designed for Mainland refugees in Hong Kong. Chapter Five examines
five migrant architects’ changing attitudes towards the “Chinese style”. All held

301
supportive, critical or neutral attitudes towards the style, and further developed their
attitudes after migrating to Hong Kong. The transformation of their attitudes was
inspired by different aspects of Hong Kong’s post-war environment. Moreover, Chapter
Four investigates both private development and public works designed by the migrant
architects. The public works, including public housing, schools, churches, welfare
centres, etc. were built for lower income people, particularly those Mainland refugees.
The migrant architects’ participation and their distinctive design features that fulfill the
low-cost requirements address their social responsibility and modernistic ideal beyond
stylistic consideration.

In conclusion, this research contributes not only to a comprehensive history of Hong

Kong architecture during the post-war era, but also to a balanced history of modern
Chinese architecture in the PRC by writing a bifurcated history in Hong Kong.

302
 Appendix:
67 Migrant Architects Chronology 1

1. AUYEUNG Kai（欧阳佳）
Date of birth and death: 1905.6.23-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background: -1920.10 Class 2 Queen’s College, Hong Kong
Professional experience:
1920.10-1935.3 Clark & Iu, Architects,
A.J. Lane, Architect,
Chau & Lee, Architects,
H.M.Siu, Architect
Hop Man Construction Co., of Canton as Draughtsman and R.C. Designer
1935.4-1941.12 K.C. Chiu & Co., Architects, as Draughtsman
1942.1-1947.7 During the war, I went to the south of Kwangtung Province, China
1947.7- 1956 Leigh & Orange, Architects, as Chief Draughtsman
1955-67 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 769 of 1956
Addresses: 415, Jaffe Road, 2nd floor, Hong Kong (1956)
Rm 508, Hing Fat House, Dudell St. (1958)
Principal works:
——Homantin Mansions (The Builder, vol.12 , no.3)
——Eng. Aun Tong Building, Canton (@ K.C.Chiu & Co.)
——the Tiger Balm Pagoda, Hong Kong (@ K.C.Chiu & Co.)
——Wyler Cotton Mill, Kowloon (@ L&O)
——Printing House- Local Printing Press, Ltd. (@ L&O)
——New Assembly Hall & Extension for St. Mary’s School (@ L&O)
——Holy Family School- Canossian Institute (@ L&O)
——Trainers’ Quarters- H.K. Jockey Club (@ L&O)
——Reconstruction of Main Block at Grandstands- Hongkong Jockey Club (@ L&O)
——Pui Tak School- Aberdeen- Canossian Institute (@ L&O)

2. CHAN Hung Yip (陈洪业)

Educational background：Sun Yat Sen University, the degree of B.Sc. in Architectural
Engineering, 1944
Professional experience:
Architectural Office of the Public Works Department (1953)
1960-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 242 of 1960
1963- HKSA
Address: Princess Court 3rd floor/ Flat D, 14 Kimberley Rd. Kowloon (1964,67)

1
This appendix presents the findings of the archive investigations concerning the 67 migrant architects. Some archives
are in Chinese and others in English. In order to maintain authenticity and to minimize misunderstandings caused by
translation, the author intends to present the findings in their original languages.

303
Principal works:
——H.K.R.N.V.R. new Headquarters(The Builder, vol.10 , no.3)
——Bridges Street Market (The Builder, vol.10 , no.3)

3. CHAN Kwok Koon (陈国冠)

Date of birth and death: 1914.2.7-?
Native place: 广东中山 （British Subject by Birth）
Educational background:
Diploma in Architecture, School of Architecture, University of Liverpool, 1938.6
Certificate, R.I.B.A.
Professional experience:
1939-1942 Assistant Architect in the Bank of China, Building Department (Chung King)
1942-1945 Architect
中央登记号：经 765
1943 重庆市工务局技（副师）申请开业登记，366；重庆市建筑师登记，甲 65
中国建筑师学会重庆分会 会员
1946- 1949 Private practice in Shanghai 自办（上海）陈国冠建筑师事务所 甲等开业证
上海市建筑技师公会会员
1950 中国建筑师学会登记会员
1950-78 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 882 of 1950
1959 HKSA Member，127
Addresses: 156 Prince Edward Road (3rd Floor) Kowloon (1949)
102-A Victory House, Wyndham Street (1966)
Principal works:
——Bank buildings and residences in Chungking, Kumming and Sian (@ Bank of China)
——Apartments and residences in Shanghai (Private Practice)
——1 Tenement Building (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 5)
——6-storey Composite Building (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 6)
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. LAI Delin for contributing the data in Chinese.

4. CHAN Leung Chi (陈良耜)

Date of birth and death: 1907.3.14-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background:
Graduate of Hong Kong University, and had been admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of
Science in Civil Engineering, 1932
Professional experience:
Authorized Architect and Civil Engineer in Canton, 1936
1940- engaged in Li Hin Lung Architect office
1955-75 Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 931 of 1954
Address: 322 Prince Edward Rd. 1st floor, Kowloon (1953)
Principal works:
——Alteration and addition of No. 10 & 12 Wing Kut Street, shop and office
——No.7 Macdonnell Road, European Type House
——No. 5 Breezy Terrace, European Type House
——No. 39-49 Bridges Street, School

304
——Craigengower Cricket Club at Leighton Hill Road, Club House

5. CHAN Wing-gee（陈荣枝）
Date of birth and death: 1902-1979
Native place: 广东台山
Educational background: （美）密西根大学（U. of Michigan）建筑科毕业，1926
Professional experience: （美）密西根州注册建筑师，在美建筑师实习 4 年
1930-1933 广州市工务局技士
1933- 广州市工务局课长兼技正
黄埔开埠督办公署设计专员
1933- 建筑师
1935.6 应邀参加南京国立中央博物院设计竞赛
1937.3 实业部登记
1939-69 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 967 of 1938
广东省立勷勤大学建筑工程系教师
广州市建筑师公会理事长、广州市政府都市计划委员会委员、黄埔市筹备处专员、
1948 广州市执业建筑师（1949）
1956 HKSA Member, 52
Addresses: 306 Commercial House (1959)
1433 Central Building, Pedder Street (1966)
Principal works:
——勷勤大学校园规划、师范学院、体育馆、金木土工实验室（1933）， 广州爱群大厦
（1931-1937，与李炳垣 合作）、市府宾馆（1932）
——China Congregational Church (The Builder, vol. 6, no.3)
——Chinese Type Houses, Nathan Road (7 Blocks); Nathan Road & Nelson Street (24 Blocks)
(The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2)
——European Type Houses (1956 approved), Kowloon Tung (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6)
——24 European Type House (1956 approved), Nathan Road & Portland Street (The Builder,
vol. 12, no. 3)
——1 European Type House (1956 approved), Staunton Street (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 4)
——1 Chinese Type House, Jervois Street; 1 Office, Nathan Road (1957 approved) (The Builder,
vol. 12, no. 6)
——Factories, How Ming Street; Tsun Yip Street;1 Store, Ngau Chi Wan; 1 School, 145-149
Hai Tan Street (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 6)
——4 Factories (1959 approved), Kun Tong Main Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 1)
——1 Factory (1959 approved), Hoi Yuen Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 2)
——1 Factory (1959 approved), Kun Tong Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 3)
——Additions to Factory (1960 approved), 2-20 Palm Street (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 6)
——School (1960 approved), Tai Hang Tung (The Builder, vol. 15, no.1)
——1 Factory (1960 approved), 1 Arran Street (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 5)
——Tenement Buildings, 40 Fuk Wah Street (6-storey); 6-8 Tung Choi Street (9-storey); 5-
storey Factory Building, Kun Tong Main Road; 7-storey European Type Flats, Tai Po; (1961
approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no.4)

305
——10-storey Tenement Building (1962 approved), 77-79 Sai Yee Street (The Builder, vol. 17,
no. 2)
——Tenement Buildings, 109-115 Cheung Sha Wan Road (15-storey); 434-436 Portland Street
(10-storey) (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 3)
——Tenement Buildings, 6-8 Tung Choi Street (12-storey); 25-27 Cheong Lok Street (6-storey)
(1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no.4)
——3-storey School Building (1963 approved), Yuet Wah Street (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 6)
——2-storey European Type Flats (1963 approved), Fei Ngo Shan Road (The Builder, vol. 18,
no. 1)
——2-storey European Type Flats, Braga Circuit; Tenement Buildings, 33 Maple Street (9-
storey); 208-212 Queen’s Road East (11-storey) (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 3)
12-storey European Type Flats (1963 approved), 146-148 Argyle Street (The Builder, vol. 18, no.
5)
——6-storey Tenement Building (1962 approved), 23 Cheong Lok Street (The Builder, vol. 19,
no.3)
——5-storey Factory (1966 approved), Wai Yip Street & Hoi Yuen Road (Far East Architect &
Builder, Jan 1966)
Publications:
——“广州爱群分行建筑设计与施工经过述概”（与李炳垣 合著），《香港爱群人寿保
险有限公司广州分行爱群大酒店开幕纪念刊》，1937.7
——“防空棚与燃烧弹的防御” （署名“荣枝”），《新建筑》8 期，1942.6
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

6. CHANG Chao Kang （张肇康）

Date of birth and death: 1922-1992
Nationality: Born in Zhong Shan, Guangdong, China
Educational background:
1930-1942 Educated at Lingnam Primary School and Jin Ke Secondary School in Shanghai,
and St. Stephen’s College, Stanley, Hong Kong
1943-1946 St. John’s University, Shanghai (B.Arch., 1946)
1948-1950 Continued graduate design study in the United States at Illinois Institute of
Technology where met Buckminster Fuller, and later admitted by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology to study on City Planning and Visual Arts
1950-1951 Participated in Walter Gropius’ Master class on Architectural Design at the
Graduate School of Design at Harvard University (M.Arch. 1950)
Professional experience:
1946-1948 Trained at architectural and engineering firm, GITAI, in Shanghai; and worked
under Professor Yang Tingbao
1950- worked with The Architects’ Collaborative (TAC) under Gropius on Student Center
and Hostel Design for Harvard
1952-1954 Joined Thomas & Worster, Boston on design projects such as educational
institutes
1954-1960 Associated with I.M.Pei & Partners of New York, Architect-in-charge for
planning, design and construction of Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan
1960-1961 Associated with Edward Larrabee Barnes of New York on design for department
stores and apartments
1961-1965 Returned to practise in Hong Kong with Eric Cumine on modern high-rise office
buildings, hotels and apartments design; works also included office buildings in Taipei

306
 1966-1967 Established his own practice; hotels and restaurants interior design work in Hong
Kong
1967-1972 Moved to New York, and in partnership with P. Chen & Associates, works
included hotels, restaurants, university and bank buildings, and interior design works; Auto
Pub. Awarded by New York Interior Magazine “Best Restaurant Interior Design” in 1970
1972-1975 Establish private practice in New York with works including interiors design for
offices and restaurant: Chinese restaurant “Longevity Palace” awarded “Best Restaurant
Interior Design” in 1973
1975-1985 Established architectural office in Hong Kong; works included master planning of
Fairview Park, interior design for restaurants, apartments, motels and hostels, and building
design for houses and motels; as design consultant for architectural design institutes in China
for apartments, hotels and resort villages in Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen
1977-1988 Paid numerous visits to mainland China with architectural undergraduates;
concentrated on research of traditional and vernacular architecture and landscape design of
China
1979-1984 Affiliated with the University of Hong Kong as a part-time lecturer on
architectural design and Chinese traditional architecture
1983-1984 Invited as visiting lecturer on design at South China Institute of Technology,
Guangzhou
1990- Lectured at the Chinese University of Hong Kong
1992 Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——12-Storey Block Breaks Form Mirror Pattern, Dor Fook Mansions ( The Builder, vol.17 ,
no.6) (with Kwok Tun-Li, Stanley (郭敦礼))
——Hong Kong College Has Open Air Amphitheatre (The Builder, vol.18 , no.3) (with Kwok
Tun-Li, Stanley (郭敦礼))
——Student Center and Hostel Design for Harvard (1951, worked with TAC under Gropius)
Tunghai University, Taichung (1954-1960, Architect-in-charge for planning, design and
construction)
——Pacific Center, Central, Hong Kong (-1961-)
——Agricultural Exhibition Hall, National Taiwan University, Taipei(1963)
——Chia Hsin Building, Taipei (1965, collaborate with the Taipei architect Haigo Shen)
Auto Pub., New York (1970, interior design works)
——Fashion boutique, New York (1973, interior design works)
——Chinese restaurant “Longevity Palace”, New York (1973, interior design works)
——Fairview Park, Yuen Long, Hong Kong (1975, master planning)
——Apartment, Shanghai (1979)
——Resort Hotel at Stone-view Hill, Zhuhai (1981)
——Hotel, Xi’an (1986)
——Hotel for Muslims, Guangzhou (1985-1986)
Publications:
—— “Housing: a sign of the times”, South China Morning Post, May 31, 1985
——China: Tao in Architecture (co-author: Werner Blaser) (Basel: Birkhauser, 1987)
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Qian, Wang, et al., c2004)

307
7. CHANG Edward David（张远东）
Date of birth and death: 1900.5-?
Nationality: Chinese (14 years in England), Shanghai China
Educational background:
1912-1918 Clarence School, Weston S. Mare, Somerset
1918-1919 Imperial College of Science and Technology, London
1919-1922 B.Sc. Degree in Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, England;
1923-1925 School of Mines, Canborne, Cornwall
Professional experience:
1919 Underground Railways, London
1923 North Devon & Cornwall Junction Railway
1927-1930 Engineer-in-Chief, Kiukiang-Nanchang Railway, Kiangsi, China
1930-1931 Technical Adviser to the Ministry of Railways, Nanking, China
1932-1933 Assistant Engineer-in-Chief, Shanghai-Nanking Railways, China
1932 上海市工务局技师开业登记（土木），45
1933-1946 Promoted Chiming & Co. Architects & Engineers, Shanghai, China
1950 Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 750 of 1949
Address: 33 Mosque Street, Hongkong (1949)
Principal works:
——Railways (London, China)
——mills & apartment-houses (Shanghai)

8. CHANG Harding-ding（张孝庭）
Date of birth and death: 1903-1968.8.5
Native place: 浙江鄞县
Educational background:
（美）芝加哥美国学院土木工程系毕业
（英）Chartered Structural Engineer
Professional experience: 1927.1-（上海）公和洋行 土木工程师（15 年）
（香港）安利洋行土木工程师（4 年 7 个月）
1930.11 获南京中山纪念塔（未实现）图案竞赛第四奖（奖金 600 元）
1932 上海市工务局技副开业登记（土木），21
1933.1 上海工务局开业证书
自办（上海）孝庭工程司事务所
1947 上海市工务局乙等开业证（？No.27 为 1947.7- 上海市工务局注册 甲等，
No.48 为 1946.3 上海工务局注册 乙等）
上海市建筑技师公会会员
1947-69 Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 667 of 1947
1948.12 Foundation Members of the Engineering Society of Hong Kong
-1948- (香港) Palmer & Turner 事务所工程师
1968 Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——南京中山陵园蓄水池（1930， 馥记营造厂，25,000 两）（“总理陵园管理委员会第
17 次委员会会议记录”，1930.5.28，南京市档案馆、中山陵园管理处编《中山陵档案史料
选编》，南京：江苏古籍出版社，1986。）
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. LAI Delin for contributing the data in Chinese.

308
9. CHAU Po Cheung (周宝璋)
Date of birth and death: 1917.10.15-?
Nationality: British Subject
Educational background:
1937-1941 Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, obtained Degree of Bachelor of
Science with Honours
Professional experience:
1941-1942 Apprentice Engineer in the architectural office of the P.W.D., Hong Kong, a total
apprenticeship of two years.
1942.6-1943.6 Practising as architect in Kweilin, China
1943.7-1944.9 as engineer in the Engineer Section of the American Army in China, taking
charge of the Draughting Room working on roads and buildings
1944.11-1945.12 Section Engineer of the Chinese Pipeline Engineering Commission, laying
pipeline from Burma to China, building stations and quarters along the line
1947.1-1948 Manager in Messrs. T.C.Yuen & Co., Architects & Civil Engineers, working on
the design and supervision of buildings
1948-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 420 of 1948
Address: c/o Messrs T.C. Yuen & Co., Architects & Civil Engineers, No. 4A, Des Voeux
Road Central, HK (1948)
Principal works:
——roads and buildings (China)
——pipeline, stations and quarters (China)
——design and supervision of buildings (T.C. Yuen, HK)

10. CHEANG Koon-hing, Arthur（郑观宣）

Date of birth and death: 1916.12.2-?
Native place: Shanghai
Educational background:
1937-1940. Architectural Association, Lodon, England
1940-1944 Under and post-graduate studies, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University,
U.S.A.
1944-1946 Department of Regional Planning, Graduate School of Design, Harvard
University, U.S.A.
Professional experience:
Lecture in Architectural Department, St. John’s University, Shanghai
1947-1948 Shanghai Municipal City Planning Board (Member and Planner)
1948-1951 Associated Architects Planning & Research Organization (1945.10- 合办（上
海）五联建筑师事务所)
H.S.Luke &Associates. Hong Kong Office. (Architect)
1952- Hsin Yieh Architects (Architect)
1955-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 1413 of 1954
Address: 4, Cornwall Street, Kowloon (1954?)
Principal works:
——1952 New Residence (Design & Supervision) on N.K.I.L. No.1972, Cornwall Street,
Kowloon (in Association with Mr. G.D. Su of Hsin Yieh Architects.
——Peace Mansions, Apartment Block, Tai Hang Rd. (The Builder, vol.13, no.1) (with GD Su)

309
——Hung Hom Building Can Be Car Park of Factory (The Builder, vol.18, no.4 ) (with GD Su)
——Tang Shiu Kin Hospital (The Builder, vol.69, no.7) (with GD Su)
——Hung Hom Building (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 4) (with GD Su)
——Mong Kok Divisional Police Station (with GD Su)

11. CHENG Chung Chow (郑颂周)

Date of birth and death: 1923.5.31-?
Nationality: British Subject
Educational background: 1942-1947 Studied in National Sun Yet-sen University, China, for
four years and obtained the Degree of B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
1952-1954 Studied in University of Leeds for two years and obtained the Degree of B.Sc.
with Honours in Civil Engineering. Practical Designs under Mr. D.C. Henry, A.M.I.C.E.
Member of R.San. I.(Royal Sanitary Institute), I.B.E.(Institute of British Engineers), and
A.M.S.E., designated as “Incorporated Engineer”
Professional experience:
1947-1950 in the employ of Hong Kong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., as Draftsman,
Structural Designer, and Supervisor of works, under Mr. A.V. Skvorzov, M.I. Struct. E., and
Mr. Faitfone Wong, Authorized Architect for three years
1950-52 Supervisor of Works of Sub-Contractor to Hong Kong Engineering & Construction
Co. Ltd.
1955-67- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 766 of 1955
Address: 84, Fuk Lo Tsun Road, First Floor, Kowloon (1954)
Principal works:
——Prestressed concrete structure; steel mill building; proposed bus station; foot bridge for
railway station; open grand stand; etc. (Leeds, under Henry)
@ Hong Kong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. (1947-50)
——Hong Kong & Whampoa Dock Co. Ltd.,: R.C. Office Building, Workshop, Godown, etc.
——Nanyang Cotton Mill Ltd: Main Spinning Mill, Office, Dormitories, etc.
——Hong Kong Cotton Mill Ltd.: Reclamation of Land, Spinning & Weaving Factory, Air
Conditioning Plant, Dormitories.
@ (1950-52)
——Godown for Diaward Trading Co. Ltd.
——Weaving Mill for Nanyang Cotton Mill Ltd.
——Staff Quarters for Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock Co., Ltd
——Arts Mansion (1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.3)
——Commanding Flat Block Has Aluminium Curtain Walling and High Tensile Steel
Reinforcement (1961) (The Builder, vol.16, no. 2)
——New Cinema for Kowloon (1962) (The Builder, vol.17, no.3)

12. CHEUNG Hung To(张雄涛)

Date of birth and death: 1924.12.23-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background: 1929-1932 Lower Primary School (private) Hong Kong
1932-1935 Higher Primary School of Chi Hang Middle School, Hong Kong
1935-1938 Junior Middle of Chi Hang Middle School, Hong Kong

310
 1939-1941 Senior Middle of Kwong Tai Middle School, Hong Kong
1939-1941 Senior Middle of Sze Sze Middle School Hong Kong
1941-1945 National Sun Yat Sen University, China (B.Sc. Eng.)
Professional experience:
1947-1955 Structural Engineer in Messrs. A.H. Basto’s Office
1956-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 156 of 1956
Address: No.31 Yiu Wah Street, 1st floor, Hong Kong (1955)
Principal works:
@ A.H. Basto’s Office
——St. Anthony’s Church (on I.L. No. 2484, Pokfulam Road)
——St. Louis Middle School (on I.L. No.2484, Third Street)
——Holy Cross School (on S.I.L. 456, Tai Shek Street)
——Metal Factory (on N.K.I.L. No. 3570 Shun Ning Road)
——Weaving Factory (on K.I.L. 6367 To Kwa Wan Road)

13. CHEUNG Kit Lam（张杰霖）

Date of birth and death: 1917.9.27-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background: 1940 Graduated in the University of Hong Kong with the Degree of
B.Sc. in Engineering
Professional experience:
Sep.1940-Dec.1941 Apprenticed Civil Engineer in Hong Kong Engineering & Construction
Co., Ltd.
Feb.1942-Aug.1945 Civil Engineer in P.W.D. (Canton)
Nov.1945-Oct.1948 Assistant Civil Engineer in Kowloon-Canton Railway
Dec.1948-Jan. 1949 Surveyor in Metropolitan Const. Co.
1948.12 Foundation Members of the Engineering Society of Hong Kong
Jan 1949-Oct. 1949 General Works Manager in Ngai Foon Building Contractor
Oct.1949-1951- Civil Engineer in Asiatic Petroleum Co., (S.C.) Ltd
The Permanent Way Institution’s Certificate of Fellowship
1952-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), G. N.540 of 1952
Addresses: （1948 address）10 Prince’s Terrace
The Asiatic Petroleum Co., (S.C.) Ltd., Operations Department, Shell House,
Queen’s Rd., Central Hong Kong (1951)
Principal works:
@ A.H. Basto’s Office
——Supervised Building works in Kadoorie Avenue Estate (@ HK E&C Co.)
——Checked R.C.C. Calculations submitted by Architects; Made designs of R.C.C. Buildings,
Timber Bridges, Road Construction, Retaining Walls, etc. Town Planning (@PWD Canton)
——Supervised Rehabilitation works (@KL-Canton Railway)
——Took Survey of Co’s South Bay Estate (@Metropolitan)
——Supervised Construction Works (@Ngai Foon)
——Design R.C.C. Buildings; In charge of Service Stations Construction Works; Draw up
contracts & specifications etc.

311
14. CHIEN Nei-jen（钱乃仁，Chan, Nai-jen）
Educational background: （美）密西根大学建筑系毕业，学士（B. Arch.）1937
Professional experience:
1948-69 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 925 of 1941
1942- 中山大学建筑工程系教授（1943），教授建筑图案设计、建筑计划、室内装
饰、建筑师业务及法令、都市计划
香港建筑师， Room 143 Alexandra House, Hong Kong（1958）
1963-离港赴美(1965-9-52)
Principal works:
——Briar Avenue Co-operative Apartments (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.6)
——Saint Francis D’Assisi Church (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.6)
——Chee-Lin Orphanage and Home for the AGED (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.1)
——New Seminary at Pokfulam (1957) (The Builder, vol.13, no.1)
——Blue Pool Road Co-operative (1958) (The Builder, vol.13, no.6)
——The Morrison Memorial Centre, KL.(1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.2)
——St. Stephen’s Church Hong Kong (1963) (The Builder, vol.1965, no.9)
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. LAI Delin for contributing the data in Chinese.

15. CHIEN Sing-shou（钱聃寿，湘寿）

Date of birth and death: 1908.6.9-?
Nationality: Kiangsu, China
Educational background:
Entered the Architectural Course of the National Central University, Nanking, China,
completed the whole course, July, 1930, with B.S.A. degree
Professional experience:
1933.11 Chinese Governmental authourized architect
1930-1932 was employed as draftsman in the Union Architect’s Office, Shanghai
1932-1940 was in the Chinese Military Engineering Bureau, Nanking, in the capacity of the
architect, architectural engineer, engineering section-chief and commissioner
1940-1945 acted as the Architect, designed a few buildings at Shanghai and Nanking
1945-1948 was entrusted as the chief architect in the Bureau
1953.4-1954.6 acted as the Architect and Engineer in the Taylor Construction Co., Hong
Kong
1955-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 1413 of 1954 (P.S. Name of local Resident
vouching for identity of applicant: FAN Wen Zhao)
1956 HKSA Member, 55
Addresses: 90 Yee Wo Street, 1st floor, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong (1954)
612, Hing Fat House, 8 Duddell Street (1959)
901-902, Hang Seng Bank Building (1966)
Principal works:
——Designed and erected the Great Assembly Hall, with a capacity for 5000 persons, library,
indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, athlitio court, and all the buildings of Officer’s Academy (中
央陆军军官学校), as well as designed and erected the entire buildings of the Military
Communication and Commissary School, engaged in design, supervision, and general duties
applicable to architectural and engineering works. (@Military Engineering Bureau, Nanking)
Erected the Hoover Theater and apartments, Causeway Bay
——Sing Pao Daoly News Building, North Point, Hong Kong

312
——Development of Former Bailey’s Shipyard (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.7)
——Factories (1955-57 approved), Tai Wan Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5, vol. 12, no. 4, 5)
——Chinese Type Houses, Pak Tai Street & San Shan Road (38 Blocks); Pak Tai Street (24
Blocks) (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6, vol. 12, no. 3)
——1 Apartment (1957 approved), New Road off Kwa Wan Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 6)
——Chinese Type Houses, 20-22 Yen Chau Street (2 Blocks); 108-200, Sai Yeung Choi Street (2
Blocks) (1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 1)
——Factories (1 Textile) (1957-59 approved), Shing Yip Street (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 1, 6 ,
vol.14, no. 2, 5)
——Tenement Buildings, J/O Hung Fook Street & Ngan Hon Street; Ha heung Road & Lok
Shan Road (2 Blocks); Pak Tai Street & Ma Hang Chung Road; Woosung & Bowring Street ; 1
Apartment, Kennedy Road; 1 Cinema and Office, Fung Fook Street, Yuk Shing Street & Kai
Ming Street (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 5)
——1 Tenement Building, Ngan Hon Street; Apartment Buildings, Marsh Road & Jaffe Road;
Marsh Road & Gloucester Road; King’s Road; 1 Factory, Hing Yip Street; 1 Store, New Road off
Tai Nam Street (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 6)
——1 Apartment Building (1958 approved), Bonham Road; 1 Drying Shed, 5 Craftsman Road; 1
Tenement Building, Wan On Street (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 1)
——1 Swimming Pool, Macdonnell Road; 4 Chinese Type House, Ngau Tau Kok Road (1959
approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 2)
——1 Factory (1959 approved), How Ming Street (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 2, 4)
——1 Chinese Type House, 285-287 Castle Peak Road; 1 Apartment, 687-689 Nathan Road; 1
School, New Road off King’s Road (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 5)
——1 Factory (1960 approved), San Ma Tau Street (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 1)
——Office Building, 6 Queen’s Road Central; Factories, J/O Un Chau Street & Cheung Wah
Street; Cheung Sha Wan Road (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 2)
——1 Factory Building, Queen’s Road West & Sai On Lane (cooperated with 伍耀伟); 1
Tenement Building, Wing Kwong Street (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 4)
——Tenement Buildings, 171 Wongheichong Road (6-storey); 91-93 Oak Street (6-storey); 9-
storey Factory, Cheung Sha Wan Road (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 6)
——Tenement Buildings, Fung Wong New Village (6-storey); J/O Mong Kok Road & Sai Yee
Street (17-storey); Tung Ming Street & Hong Ning Street (9-storey); 1-storey Factory Building,
Tsing Yi Island (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 1)
——Tenement Buildings, J/O New Road & Jaffe Road (11-storey); Yuen Long (6-storey); 10-
storey Factory, Cheung Ning Street (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 2)
——Tenement Buildings, 1A-L Waterloo Road & 16-22 Tak Cheong Lane (A8, B10-storey); Un
Chau Street (12-storey); San Tsuen Street Tsuen Wan (7-storey); Lin Chau Street (12-storey);
199-201 Temple Street (7-storey); 433-35 Castle Peak Road (12-storey); Tsuen Wan (12-storey);
3-storey Factory Building, Tsuen Wan; 6-storey Dormitory, Tung Ming Street ; 1-storey
Bungalow, Sheung Shui (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 3)
——Tenement Buildings, 195 Pei Ho Street (10-storey); 32 Ha Heung Road (6-storey); 286-288
Shanghai Street (10-storey); 20-storey Composite Building, Chun Yeung Street & Tong Shui
Road; 8-storey Factory Building, San Po Kong; 6-storey Workers’ Dormitory, Ngau Tau Kok
Road (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 4)
——8-storey Tenement Building (1961 approved), New Road off Tai Kok Tsui Road (The
Builder, vol. 16, no. 5)
——Tenement Buildings, 275-277 Reclamation Street (10-storey); Tai Kok Tsui Road (8-storey,
A7, B8-storey); 12-storey European Type Flats, 9-11 Ho Man Tin Street (1962 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 16, no. 6)

313
——14-storey Apartment Building, 781 Nathan Road; Tenement Buildings, 10-16 Kowloon City
Road (14-storey); Fung Wong New Village (6-storey) (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no.
1)
——12-storey European Type Flats, Yue Man Square; 10-storey Office Building, 9-11 Jubilee
Street (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 2)
——Seawall (1962 approved), Sham Tseng (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 3)
——12-storey European Type Flats (1962 approved), 9 Seymour Road (The Builder, vol. 17, no.
4)
——10-storey Tenement Building (1962 approved), Porlar Street (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 5)
——10-storey Office Building, 367-371 Queen’s Road Central; Tenement Buildings, 335 Nathan
Road (16-storey); 312-320 Canton Road (12-storey) (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 6)
——Blocks of 12-storey European Type Flats (1963 approved), Kun Tong (The Builder, vol. 18,
no. 1)
——Factory Buildings, Wing Hong Street (9-storey); Kwan Tong KTIL. 359 (3-storey); J/O
Sheung Hei Street & Tai Yau Street (12-storey); 16-storey Composite Building, 144-149
Gloucester Road & Stewart Road; 9-storey Tenement Building, 313-317 Shanghai Street (1964
approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 2)
——2 Blocks of 20-storey European Type Flats, Chatham Road; 18-storey Office Building, 335
Nathan Road; 7-storey Flour Mill, Yeung Uk Road, Tsuen Wan; 6-storey Tenement Building, 2-6
Nam Kok Road (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 3)
——Tenement Buildings, 197 Lockhart Road (11-storey); 112 Gloucester Road (11-storey);
Composite Buildings, 194-200 Lockhart Road (14-storey); 201-203 Hennessy Road (14-storey);
European Type Flats, New Road near Water Road (21-storey); Tai Hang Road IL. 7904 (2 Blocks
of 21-storey) (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 4)
——6-storey European Type Flats, 45 Blue Pool Road; Factory Buildings, Hung To Road &
Tsun Yip Street (9-storey); Texaco Road, Tsuen Wan (3-storey); 16-storey Office Building, 58-
60 Cameron Road (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 5)
——12-storey Tenement Building, Chai Wan; Office Buildings, 74-78 Stanley Street (10-storey);
1-5 Tin Lok Lane (22-storey); Composite Buildings, 164-170 Des Voeux Road West (16-storey);
358-360 Prince Edward Road (7-storey); Factory Buildings, Chai Wan (12-storey); Fuk Tsum
Street (12-storey); Hung To Road (7-storey); Fuk Tsun Street, Walnut Street & Larch Street (14-
storey) (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 6)
——17-storey European Type Flats, Waterloo Road; 9-storey Tenement Building , 64-66 Tak Ku
Ling Road; Office Buildings, 68-70 Wellington Street (10-storey); 199-203 Hennessy Road (22-
storey); Factory Buildings, Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong (13-storey); 478 Castle Peak Road (14-
storey) (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 1)
——1 Temple Pagoda & Office Building (2-storey) (1964 approved), Lai Chi Kok Amusement
Park (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 1, 2)
——23-storey European Type Flats, Mut Wah Road & Hip Wo Street; 15-storey Composite
Building, 8-12 Aberdeen Street & 39-43 Gage Street; Factory Buildings, Tsing Yi Island (6-
storey); Hong Ming Street (8-storey); Kwun Tong (11-storey) (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol.
19, no. 2)
——12-storey Factory Building, Hing Yip Street; 8-storey Tenement Building, Wanchai Road &
Stone Nullah Lane (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 3)
——3-storey Factory (1966 approved), Tsuen Wan (Far East Architect & Builder, Jan 1966)
——Hoover Theater and apartments, Causeway Bay; Sing Pao Daily News Building, North Point
(1953-1954)
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

314
16. CHIU Kwan-chee（赵君慈）
Date of birth and death: ?-1964?
Educational background: Hong Kong University, engineering
Professional experience:
1932-65 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 583 of 1932
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
K.C. Chiu & Co., National Bank Building, Des Voeux Rd. Central (1939)
(firm members: AUYEUNG, Kai（欧阳佳），1935-1941，绘图员）
Principal works:
——ng. Aun Tong Building, Canton (1935-1941, according to Auyeung Kai)
——the Tiger Balm Pagoda, Hong Kong (1935-1941, according to Auyeung Kai)
—— Block of Flats (1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.6) (Tai Po Market)
——Tang King Po Trade School (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.3)

17. CHOU Charles Lun alias CHOU Chen Lun（周滋汎，字：镇伦)

Date of birth and death: 1890 (?)－1969.?.2
Native place: 浙江衢县
Educational background:
（天津）北洋大学
公费留美，康乃尔大学（Cornell U.）土木工程系毕业，硕士，？
B.Sc., M.C.E. (Cornell)
Professional experience:
留学期间（？）（美）土木工程师学会会员, A.Am.S.C.E.，1968 年荣获终身会员称
号(Life Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers)
浙江及中央大学教授
浙江省水利局长
广东省内港工程处长
黄埔开埠公署委员
（上海）同济大学（圣约翰大学？）教授
Technical Adviser to Macau Government (firm members: WONG,Ting-Tsai（王定斋）,
Assistant Engineer, Apr.1944-Dec.1945)
1947（？）举家迁居澳门
1966 移居香港
澳门工务局下水道工程处长
澳门注册劃则建筑工程师（被誉为澳门开埠 400 年来第一个华人建筑工程师）
1947-1967Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 667 of 1947
自营（香港）周滋汎劃则建筑工程师（事务所地址：Ice House St.）
1969 在港逝世后，葬在澳门
Principal works:
——澳门南湾政府合署大厦（1948－1951，3 层，澳门工务局长葡国人毕士达工程师督
建，周承建）
——澳门各处下水道工程（如：河边新街）
——澳门新马路的中央酒店的加建
——澳门南环十三层大厦（当时澳门最高的建筑）
Principal works:

315
——1 Store, Ngau Chi Wan (1955 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 4)
——1 Workshop, Ngau Chi Wan (1956-57 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6; vol. 12, no. 5)
——3 Chinese Type House, Shaukiwan Road (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6)
——2 European Type House, Leighton Road (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6; vol.
12, no. 3)
——2 Chinese Type House, Fuk Wing Street(1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 1)
——Chinese Type House, Castle Peak Road; Station Lane; Berwick Street(2); Fuk Wong Street
(2); Un Chau Street (2); Yiu Wa Street (2);
4 European Type House, Soares Avenue
(1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no.3)
——Chinese Type House, Nathan Road; Nan King Street; (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12,
no.4)
——Chinese Type House, Shing On Street; New Road off Ma Tau Wei Road (8); Chung Wo
Lane; Peel Street; (1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no.5)
——1 Factory, Castle Peak Road (1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no.6)
——1 Factory, Ngau Tau Kok; 2 Chinese Type House, 120-122, Ma Tau Wei Rd.; (1957
approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no.1)
——European Type House, Pokfulam Road (2, 1) (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no.5;
vol. 13, no.6)
——1 Apartment Building, Shaukiwan Road;
Chinese Type House, 20 Tai Yuen Street; 16 Elgin Street;
1 European Type House, Robinson Road;
1 Tenement Building, New Road off Ma Tau Wai Road;
1 Store, Road to No. 8 Cemetery;
(1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no.5)
——1 Factory, Ah Kung Ngam(1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no.6)
——Chinese Type House, 73 Battery Street; 547 Shanghai Street;
1 Composite Building, Yue Man Square & Hong Ning Road
(1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no.2)
——5 Chinese Type House, Luen On Street (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no.3)
——1 Tenement Building, Arran Street & Reclamation Street (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol.
14, no.4)
——2 European Type House, 1 Chico Terrace & Peel;
Extention to Existing Factory, 51 Wing Hong Street;
1 Chinese Type House, 1 & 3 North Street
(1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no.5)
——1 European Type House, 15 Tung Shan Terrace, Stubbs Road (1960 approved) (The Builder,
vol. 15, no.1)
——1 European Type House, 9 Ashley Road;
Tenement Building, 800 Canton Road; J/O Luen On Street & Ngau Tau Kok Road;
1 Factory, 1A Pitt Street
(1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no.3)
——1 Tenement Building, Aplichau Main Street, Aplichau (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15,
no.4)
——1 European Type House, 4-storey, 88 Pokfulam Road, Lucy Loke;
Tenement Building, 6-storey, King Street, Wong Sau Chun & Yan Yee Kin; 6-storey, Luen On
Street, Tse Sum;
(1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no.6)

316
——1 Service Station, 1-storey, 51 Wing Hong Street, Tong Iu (1961 approved) (The Builder,
vol. 16, no.1)
——1 European Type Flats, 3-storey, Bisney Villas, Pokfulam Road, L.K. Ho;
1 Workshop Building, 7-storey, 4 Sands Street, C.B. Watt;
1 Tenement Building, 6-storey, 23-25 Reclamation Street, F.Chow & W.L. Lo;
1 European Type House, 2-storey, Fan Ling, Y.K. So & H. Li.
(1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no.2)
——Tenement Building, 5-storey, 14 & 16 Staunton Street, D. Kotwall; 6-storey, 15 Pokfulam
Road, S.F. Leung; 6-storey, Texaco Road, Tsuen Wan, K.C. Chan; 4-storey, 17-19 Wai Fung
Street & San Shi Street, W.F. Leung & T.S. Chan; 6-storey, 335-335A Reclamation Street, C.Y.
Chow; 12-storey, 308-310 Castle Peak Road, C.Y. Tam & C.Q. Yee;
1 European Type House, 2-storey, Fanling, Sun Fung Co. Ltd.;
1 Garage, 1-storey, Tai Po Market, T.W. Tang;
1 Composite Building, 14-storey, 254-260 Lockhart Road, K.C. Leung;
1 Factory Building, 3-storey, Tsuen Wan, K.W. Tong
(1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no.3)
——Tenement Building, 10-storey, 178-182 Fuk Wing Street, Y.S. To; 12-storey, 475 Nathan
Road, Y.W. Lee (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no.5)
——Tenement Building, 6-storey, 141 Un Chau Street, H. Leung; 15-storey, 564 Nathan Road,
F.F. Yu; 6-storey, 184 Fuk Wing Street, H.W. Tam; 6-storey, 80-82 Tung Lo Wan Road, Y.Y.
Tai & H.W.Shek; 6-storey, 18-20 Spring Garden Lane, S.L.Chu, S.H. Cheng; 6-storey, Texaco
Road, W.T. Chan (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no.5)
——1 Tenement Building, 6-storey, 18-20 Brown Street, Tai Hang Village, C.W. Chan;
1 Composite Building, 14-storey, 389-399 Lockhart Road, S.T. Wan & others;
1 Sawmill, 2-storey, Chai Wan Road, Tsuen Wan, S.L.Wong
(1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no.6)
——1 Tenement Building, 6-storey, Yeung Uk Road, Tsuen Wan, C.W. Wong (1962 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 17, no.1)
——1 Composite Building, 13-storey, 2-4 North Point Road, K.C. Leung;
1 Sawmill, 2-storey, Yau Tong Bay, Charles Lun Chou;
1 Tenement Building, 6-storey, 16 Tsun Yuen Street, T.K. Ho
(1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no.3)
——1 Tenement Building, 6-storey, 29 Tang Lung Street, Y.Lo;
1 Composite Building, 7-storey, Tai Woo Street & Sai Wan Ho Street, Y.K. Wong;
Factory Building, 10-storey, Chai Wan, Y.Wan; 1-storey, Yau Tong Bay, S.C. Lo; 8-storey, San
Po Kong, V.T. Hsu;
1 European Type Flats, 2-storey, 18 m.s, Castle Peak Road, K.W. Tang
(1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no.5)
——Tenement Building, 6-storey, 13 & 15 Tai Wong Street East, T.W. Mak; 11-storey, Ma Tau
Chung Road, S.Li; 6-storey, Fung Wong Village, P.C. Fu; I. H. Lo; 6-storey, 32 Bonham Strand,
M.N. Man (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no.6)
——1 Office Building, 7-storey, 15-19 Hollywood Road, W.T. Fung;
Tenement Building, 16-storey, 52-54 Argyle Street, Fu Sing Land Inv. Co.; 7-storey, Fong Wong
New Village, Y.H. Yeung; 6-storey, Tsuan Wan, C.C. Wan;
1 European Type Flats, 14-storey, 780-782 Nathan Road, Y.W. Lau;
1 Factory Building, 3-storey, Kwai Chung, F. Liu
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no.1)

317
——Tenement Building, 6-storey, 40-41 Sun Chun Street, M. Chan; 6-storey, 51 Sai Yee Street,
K.F. Fung; 9-storey, 48-50 Soy Street, M.H. Tam; 11-storey, 146-150 Un Chau Street, E.T. Fan;
4-storey, San Fung Ave., Shek Wu Hui, T.F. Ng;
1 Composite Building, 6-storey, 1-3 King Sing Street, T. Muk;
1 School Building, 2-storey, Sun Tin Village, Shatin, C.H. Sik
1 European Type Flats, 8-storey, 9-11 Kimberley Road, K.F. Lau
1 Factory Building, 2-storey, Chai Wan Road, Tsuen Wan, W.L. Lau;
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no.2)
——Tenement Building, 6-storey, 21-23 Yik Yam Street, S.F. Wong & H. Chan; 6-storey, Fung
Wong New Vlllage, H.P. Kung & others; 6-storey, 100 Kilung Street, C.W. Wong; 13-storey,
209-213 Lai Chi Kok Road, Y.W. Tam & others; 10-storey, 174-176 Fuk Wing Street, Tung Lai
King;6-storey, 82 Kai Tak Road, C.M.Koo; 8-storey, 16-18 Pitt Street, K.S. Ho; 3-storey, San
Shing Avenue, Shek Wu Hui, Y.H. Cheong & others;
1 Office Building, 6-storey, 18 Yunnan Lane, C.K. Wong;
1 Composite Building, 14-storey, 56-58 Nam Cheong Street, C.K. Lau;
Factory Building, 7-storey, Hung To Road, H.S. Cheng; 8-storey, San Po Kong, C.K. Lee & J.M.
Lau;
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no.3)
——Tenement Building, 9-storey, 131-137 Portland Road, I. C. Lo; 16-storey, 4 Anchor Street,
Wah Keung Rubber Mfg.; 9-storey, 42-44 Shanghai Street, Y.P.Ip & P.H. Chung; 3-storey, Shek
Wu Hui, Sheung Shui, Y.H.Choog & others;
Composite Building, 20-storey, Nathan Road & Argyle Street, Lee Shing Land Inv.; 9-storey,
980-986 Canton Road, T.K. Chan & K.K. Wong;
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no.4)
——Tenement Building, 6-storey, 8 Third Street, K.T. Choi; 3-storey, San Shing Avenue,
Shekwu Hui, T.F. Mok(4); 3-storey, Jockey Club Road, Shek Wu Hui, Y.H. Cheong &
Y.Y.Chung;
1 European Type Flats, 8-storey, 6 Liberty Avenue, P.C. Li;
1 Factory Building, 12-storey, Hung To Road, Winley Enterprises;
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no.5)
——Tenement Building, 10-storey, 318-320 Un Chau Street, C.K.Fung; 6-storey, 11-15 Tak Ku
Ling Road, C.M. Ko & T.H.Tsing;
1 European Type Flats, 2-storey, South Bay Road, Wai Loy Entr. Co.;
1 Composite Building, 14-storey, 410-424 Des Voeux Road West, T.W. Chan & others;
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no.6)
——Tenement Building, 14-storey, 31-41 Ko Shing Street, S.Y.Chan & others; 7-storey, Tin
Kok Road, Tai Po, Paul T.P. Zau; 9-storey, Hang On Street, Chang Tung Nam Inv.;
1 Library & Recre. Center, 2-storey, San Shi Street & Ping Lan Street, Chairman of Aplichau
Kaifong Welfare Assn. ;
1 Ship Yard, Cheung Sha Wan, Wing Tat Inv. Co. Ltd.;
(1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no.1)
——1 Tenement Building, 3-storey, Shek Wu Hui, Y.H. Chiang & others (1964 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 19, no.2)
——Tenement Building, 12-storey, 146-152 Queen’s Road East, Ming Yan Inv. Co. Ltd.; 6-
storey, 896 Canton Road, J. Chan; 6-storey, 294 Kilung Street, O Choi & C.S. Szeto (1964
approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no.3)
——1 Tenement Building, 8-storey, 1084-1086 Canton Road, W. Wong & others;
1 Factory Building, 11-storey, 477-483 Un Chau Street, Southern Trust & Finance Co. Ltd.;
(1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no.4)
Publications:

318
——（在大陆期间）著有不少水利工程专书，为各大学选作课本
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. Oliver Chou at HKU, son of Chou Charles Lun for contributing
the data in Chinese.

18. CHU Pin（朱彬）

Date of birth and death: 1896.12.24-1971.8.20
Native place: 广东南海
Educational background:
（北京）清华学校毕业，1918
University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., B. of Arch. 1922, Master of Architecture 1923
Professional experience:
1915 以智育“绘造图样”获清华学校金牌一面（《清华周刊临时增刊》（第一次），
1915.6.26）
天津警察厅工程顾问、天津特别一区工程师、天津特别二区工程科主任
1924- Practice under the name of Kwan Chu & Co in Tientsin, Peking and Mukden, 甲等开
业证
工商部注册，77
上海市建筑技师公会会员
1931.8 经董大酉、巫振英 介绍加入中国建筑师学会
1932 上海市工务局技师开业登记（建筑），19
1932.9 北平市工务局登记技师
经济部登记，29；重庆市工务局建筑技师登记，24
1928- under the name of Kwan Chu & Yang in Tientsin, Nanking, and Shanghai
1934- also in Chungking and Canton
中国建筑师学会基金及会所委员会主任（1948.7，南京）
Shanghai office: 113 Kiukiang Road (1949.8)
1950 年中国建筑师学会登记会员
1950-71 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 1127 of 1949 (P.S. Name of local Resident
vouching for identity of applicant: Sir Shouson Chow)
Director of Messrs. Kwan, Chu & Yang, Hong Kong（firm members: POON Siu Chuen (潘
绍铨)，LI Fook Hon（李福汉）等）
1956 HKSA Member，31
Business Address: 5th fl., 181 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong (1949)
1204, Man Yee Building
Residence Address: 107 Waterloo Road, Kowloon
Nanking office: 132 Chung Cheng Road (1949.8)
1971 Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——Continental Bank Building, Peking, 1925
——Nankai University, Library & other buildings, 1926
——Chung Yuen Department Store, Tientsin, 1928
——London Mission Church, Taku Road, Tientsin, 1929
——Continental Warehouse, Tientsin, 1929
——Continental Bank Building (11 story) Shanghai, 1933
——Central Hospital, Naking, 1933

319
——The Sun Co. Department Store, Shanghai, 1935
——Chung San Memorial Hospital, Shanghai, 1936
——St. Elizabeth Hospital of the American Church Mission, Shanghai, 1939
——Young Brothers Banking Corporation, Shanghai, 1939
——The Free Christian Church, C.I.M., Shanghai, 1940-1941
——Central Bank Building, Chungking, 1938
——New Railway Station at Nanking, 1947-1948
——Apartment House (10 storey), Standard Vacuum Oil Co., Shanghai, 1948-1949
——Security Blends with Free Access in New Hong Kong Bank, Bank of East Asia Mongkok
Building (1962) (The Builder, vol.17, no.2,3)
——Aberdeen Welfare Centre Designed to Cheer Trainees (1963) (The Builder, vol.18, no.1)
——the Miramar Hotel (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.2)
——New Shaws Building (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.2)
——The Man Yee Building (1957) (The Builder, vol.13, no.1)
——Takshing House (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.2)
——Shops, Cinema and Offices Full Site Utilisation, The Lok Hoi Tong Building (1961) (The
Builder, vol.16, no.3)
——Ying Wa College (1964) (The Builder, vol.19, no.2)
——Miramar Hotel (1953), Kimberley Road (The Builder, vol. 10, no. 2)
——1 Apartment Building, Macdonnell Road; 1 Office Building, Des Voeux Road Central &
Queen’s Road Central (1954 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2)
——Office Buildings (1955-57 approved), Des Voeux Road Central (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 4,
vol. 12, no. 5)
——Office Buildings (1955-56 approved), Queen’s Road Central (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5, vol.
12, no. 3)
——Schools, Shaukiwan; Park Road (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 1)
——1 European Type House, Perkins Road; (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 4)
——Club House (1956-57 approved), King’s Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 4, vol. 12, no. 6)
——2 European Type House (1957 approved), Shouson Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 5)
——1 Apartment Building (1958 approved), 31 Queen’s Road Central (The Builder, vol. 13, no.
6)
——1 Godown (1959 approved), 159-162 Connaught Road West and 287-293 Des Voeux Road
West (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 1)
——17-storey Takshing House (1957), 20 Des Vouex Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 2)
——1 Apartment (1959 approved), Pak Hoi Street & Gascoigne Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 3)
——1 Y.W.C.A. Hostel (1959 approved), Bonham Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 4)
——1 Factory (1960 approved), Kun Tong Road (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 2)
——School & Clinic (1960 approved), Shing Tak Street (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 4)
——1 European Type Flats (1960 approved), Breezy Path (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 5)
——1-storey Mausoleum (1961 approved), 131/2 Ml. Castle Peak Road (The Builder, vol. 15, no.
6)
——5-storey Funeral Parlor (1961 approved), Hoi Tai Street & Hoi Kwong Street (The Builder,
vol. 16, no. 1)
——Lok Hoi Tong Building (Queen’s Theater), 31 Queen's Road; 8-storey Workers’ Quarter
(1961 approved), Ngau Tau Kok (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 3)
——14-storey Apartment Building, J/O Waterloo Road & Homantin Street; 2-storey Vocational
Training Center, Bridges Street (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 4)
——Bank of East Asia Mongkok Building, 638-640 Nathan Road (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 3)

320
——3-storey Church/School Building (1963 approved), Tai Hang Tung Road (The Builder, vol.
17, no. 5, vol. 18, no. 2)
——1-storey Bungalow (1963 approved), U Kwai Sha, Shatin (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 6, vol.
18, no. 3)
——5-storey Hostel, Castle Peak; 11-storey Tenement Building, 186-188 Prince Edward Road;
European Type Flats, Braga Circuit (2-storey); Austin Avenue (9-storey) (1963 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 18, no. 1)
——Tenement Buildings, 110 Shanghai Street (6-storey); 39-43 Sai Yee Street (12-storey); 186-
188 Prince Edward Road (12-storey) (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 3)
——19-storey Sincere Insurance Building (1963), 4-6 Hennessy Road & 6-10 Queen’s Road East;
15-storey Office Building, 15-16 Connaught Road West; 2-storey Club House, South Bay Road,
Repulse Bay; Composite Buildings, Des Voeux Road West (13-storey); 17-35 Belcher’s Street
(12-storey) (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 4)
——1-storey Bungalow (District House) (1963-64 approved), U Kwai Sha, Shatin (The Builder,
vol. 18, no. 5, vol. 18, no. 6)
——10-storey Tenement Building (1963 approved), 428-440 Queen's Road West (The Builder,
vol. 18, no. 5)
——14-storey European Type Flats, 1-5 Caine Road; 2-storey Clinic Building, Rennie’s Mill
(1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 6)
——10-storey Composite Building (1964 approved), 30-32 New Market Street & 23-25 Tung
Loi Street (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 3)
——Office Building (1956), Queen’s Road, Central and D’Aguilar Street
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

19. CHUN Wing Cham, James (陈永箴)

Education background: B.Sc.(Birmingham), A.M.I.C.E.
Professional experience:
1932 上海工务局技师开业登记（土木），46
1949-1965 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 376 of 1949

20. Djou Gi-gao（周基高，字：志方）

Date of birth and death: 1911.7.6-?
Native place: 江苏南汇
Educational background:
Received my early education in St. John’s University and Shanghai Baptist College in
Shanghai and graduated from the latter school in 1928
Passed the Senior Examination of Architectural Profession in the Examination Yuan of the
National Government of China
M.S.C.A.
Professional experience:
1929-1931 Learned architectural under the tutorship of Mr. E. Gran, architect in the office of
Palmer & Turmer, Shanghai
1931-1936 and in the office of Davies, Brooke & Gran, Shanghai
1936-1948 I was given responsible works in the office of Davies, Brooke & Gran, Shanghai
Admitted as qualified architect in the Ministry of Economics of the National Government of
China
Registered as practicing architect in the former Municipal Government of Shanghai (1947.9
上海市工务局注册 甲等)

321
 经济部登记
历年负责（上海）建兴建筑师事务所，承办之大小建筑工程
自办周基高建筑师事务所 从事建筑物主设计、检查、估算、鉴定及监造各事项
1940.8 经陈业勋、庄俊 介绍加入中国建筑师学会
1948-1950 Joined Metropolitan Land Company, Ltd., Hong Kong as architect
上海市建筑技师公会会员
1950 中国建筑师学会登记会员
1951-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 1308 of 1950
1956 HKSA Member，10 （第一届会员）
Address: c/o Metropolitan Land Company, Ltd., 501 Edinburgh House (1950)
c/o American International Assurance Co., Ltd., 12-14 Queen’s Road Central
(1959,1966)
Principal works:
Works in the office of Davies, Brooke & Gran, Shanghai
as chief draughtsman
——Medhurst Apartment, a 12-storey building (1931-1932)
——Development Building, 19-storey office building (1934)
——Weaving Mill of China Printing & Finishing Co. (1935-1936)
——Edgewater Mansion, a 4-storey hotel in Tsingtao (1935)
——Bay view Mansion, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong (1933)
as assistant architect and designer
——Magnet House, a 6-storey office building (1936)
——Warehouse of Polkington Bros., Shanghai (1937)
——Weaving shed of Tung Yih Cotton Mill (1937)
——Hanray Mansion, an 8-storey apartment house (1939)
——Margarine factory of China Soap Co., Shanghai (1940)
as architect in charge
——Chinese Housing at Yuhung Road and Ave. Edward VII for Metropolitan Land Co., Ltd
(1935)
——Residence for Mr. Zong Chuen Dong (1936)
——Residence for Mr. E.A. Spiegler (1938)
——Jewish School at Yuhung Road, shanghai (1941)
Works on practice as architect, 1942-1945 and 1948
——Soap factory of Kwang Hwa Chemical Works
——Factory Buildings of Wal Shion Furniture Factory
——Office buildings at Yangtsepoo and Gough Island
——Installations of Shell Co., Shanghai
——Filling Stations for Shell Co., Shanghai
——Residences for Shell Co. at Gough Island, Shanghai
——Many private residence
Works in Hong Kong with Metropolitan Land Company, Ltd. as designer and supervising
architect, 1949-1950 (Mr. H. Braga was the Authorized Architect for the following)
——Residence on Lot No.7, R.B.L.508 (1949)
——Residence on Lot No.9, R.B.L.508 (1948)
——Block of residential flats on Lot No.10, R.B.L.508 (1949)
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

21. FAN Wen Zhao, Robert（范文照）

Date of birth and death: 1893.10.3-1979.1.12

322
Native place: 广东顺德（生于上海）
Educational background:
（上海）私立圣约翰大学土木工程系毕业，学士，1917
（美）宾夕法尼亚大学（U. Penn）建筑系毕业，学士，1919-1921
Professional experience:
1917-1919-（上海）私立圣约翰大学土木工程系算术测量教授
1920 John T. Windrim
1921 （美）宾夕法尼亚州、费城建筑学会会员
1922 Ch. F. Durang, Day & Klaude
1922 夏-1927（上海）允元公司（Lam Glines & Company）建筑部工程师
1925.9 获南京中山陵图案竞赛第二奖
1926 广州中山纪念堂设计竞赛第三奖 （《申报》， 1926.9.5 / 27）
1927-自营（上海）范文照建筑师事务所（从业人员先后有：赵深、徐敬直、李惠
伯、吴景奇、伍子昂、肖鼎华、铁广涛、黄章斌、陈渊若、杨锦麟、赵璧、厉尊
谅、张伯伦等）（甲等开业证）
（办公：上海四川路 110 号，住上海永福街 2 号）
上海市建筑技师公会会员
1927.10-与张光圻、吕彦直、庄俊、巫振英等发起组织中国建筑师学会（初名上海
建筑师学会）并任首届会长
1928.12- 受聘为中山陵陵园计划专门委员
1929-南京首都设计委员会评议员，并兼任（上海）私立沪江大学商学院建筑科教
师
1930 获南京中山纪念塔图案竞赛首奖
1930 上海联青社社长，上海扶轮社社员
1932 上海工务局技师开业登记（建筑），122
1932-南京中山陵园顾问
1932 国民政府铁道部技术专员，全国道路协会名誉顾问
1933.1-兼上海锦兴地产公司顾问建筑师
1933 广东省政府合署图案竞赛首奖
1934.11.27 加入（上海）American University Club of Shanghai
1935.6-代表中国出席伦敦第十四次国际城市及房屋设计会议及罗马国际建筑师大
会，受总统委任为国家顾问
1939-78 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 499 of 1938
1946.1 担任（上海）抗战胜利门设计竞赛评委
1949 在香港设立事务所 (从业人员包括其子：范政，1958-1963；范斌，1963-)
1950 中国建筑师学会登记会员、监事
1956 HKSA Member，41
Address：440-442, Alexandra House, Des Voeux Road Central (1959,1966)
1979 Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——南京中山陵图案竞赛第二奖（1925）
——广州中山纪念堂设计竞赛第三奖 (1926，《申报》， 1926.9.5 / 27)
——获南京中山纪念塔图案竞赛首奖（1930）
——南京铁道部（1930）
——励志社（与赵深 合作，1931）
——华侨招待所（与赵深 合作，1931）

323
——上海八仙桥青年会（与李锦沛、赵深 合作，1933）
——两路国难殉员工纪念堂（方案）（《中国建筑》1 卷 1 期，1933.7）
——萧特烈士陵墓（方案）（《中国建筑》1 卷 2 期，1933.7）
——上海四马路云南路三山会馆市房全部（1933，张振泰营造厂）
——上海历届殉职警察纪念碑（《中国建筑》2 卷 4 期，1934.4）
——南京卫生设施实验处新屋（《中国建筑》2 卷 6 期，1934.6）
——上海淞沪抗日阵亡无名英雄墓（方案）、南京中华麻疯疗养院、上海丽都大戏院
（改建）、广州中华书局、上海贝当路集雅公寓、上海西爱咸斯路 383 号住宅（改建）、
上海西摩路市房公寓及住宅、上海古神父路协发公寓及住宅（《中国建筑》24 期，
1936.2）
——广州广东省政府合署（方案）（与李惠伯合作，《中国建筑》24 期，1936.3）
——上海美琪（1941）、南京（1928）、乐园、新东方、丽都、沪江大戏院等
——广州市市营事业联合办事处 (徐敬直 Chinese Architecture, Past and Contemporary)
——Pinecrest (1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.7)
——Proposed Church Institute for Soldiers, Sailors & Airmen, Fanling, New Territories (1951)
(The Builder, vol.9, no.1,4)
——Ling Liang World-wide Evangelistic Mission Church (1951) (The Builder, vol.9, no.2)
——New Hoover Theater and Apartment(1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.2)
——Chung Chi College (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.2.3)
（Administration Office(1956), Library(1956-57), Multi-purpose Hall, Original Classroom
Wings(1956-1957), Hua Lian Tang(1956), Ying Lin Tang, Chung Chi College Presidents'
Resident, Athletic Building, Science Building, and Staff Quarters A, B, C, Shatin）
——Picturesque Spanish-Style Peak Home (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.3)
——Interior Design Highlights New Bank Premises (1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.1)
——New Church Planned for North Point (1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.2; vol.17, no.5)
——Room for Cars Was Base in Planning Conduit Road Flats (1961) (The Builder, vol.16, no.3)
——Hong Kong Spinners Ltd 香港纺织有限公司 (1962) (The Builder, vol.17, no.3)
(Hong Kong Spinners Ltd.: Spinning Factory, Workers Dormitory, Dining Hall, Recreation Area
(basket ball, volley ball and playing field), Cheung Sha Wan Road)
——New Theatre-office Building for Kwun Tong (Silver Theatre 银都戏院) (1964) (The Builder,
vol.18, no.4)
——19-Storey European Type Flats 1st Phase (1960 approved), 17-27 Conduit Road (The
Builder, vol. 15, no.4, vol. 18, no.6) (According to Robert FAN Zheng, it was 18 Conduit Rd. 2nd
phase was designed by Cumine)
——Hong Kong Vitasoy Bottling Plant, Kwun Tong
——Shek Kip Mei Police Station, 1959-1960 (government project)
——1 European Type House (1956 approved), Purves Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6)
——1 Welfare Center (1956 approved), Shaukiwan Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 2)
——1 Apartment (1957 approved), Prince Edward Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 6)
——European Type Houses, Factory Street (2 Blocks); Stubbs Road (1958 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 13, no. 5)
——4 European Type House (1958 approved), Maidstone Road (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 6)
——1 Apartment Building-88 duplex flats and G.F. garage (1959 approved), King’s Road (The
Builder, vol. 14, no. 1)
——European Type Houses (1959 approved), Stanley Village Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 1,
2)

324
——“Pinecrest” (1949), Pine Hill, Tai Po Road; New Hoover Theater and Apartment, Yee Wo
Street, Pennington Street and Irving Street, Causeway Bay Area; Ling Liang World-wide
Evangelistic Mission Church, Kowloon; Church Institute for Soldiers, Sailors, & Airmen, Fanling,
New Territories; Peak Home (1957), 82 Peak Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no.3)
——Workers’ Dormitory, Yee On Street & Luen On Street; Children’s Center, Ma Tau Chung
Road (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 6)
——North Point Methodist Church (1960), 11 Cheung Hong Street (The Builder, vol.15, no.2,
vol.16, no.2, vol.17, no.5)
——Workers Welfare Centre (1960 approved), 481-483 Castle Peak Road (The Builder, vol. 15,
no.4)
——6-storey Factory Building (1961 approved), Hoi Yuen Road (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 6)
——1-storey Bungalow, Clear Water Bay Road; 2-storey Center for Blind, Tai Lik Street, Shau
Kei Wan; 8-storey Factory Building, 601 Tai Nan Street (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16,
no. 4)
——Blocks of 3, 4-storey European Type Flats (1961-63 approved), Bisney Villas, Victoria Road
(The Builder, vol. 16, no.5, vol. 18, no. 5)
——12-storey European Type Flats, Wongneichong Road Block B; 5-storey Cinema Building,
Fu Yan Street (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 6)
——4-storey Students’ Hostel (1962 approved), Wong Ma Kok Road, Stanley (The Builder, vol.
17, no. 2)
——European Type Flats, J/O Soy Street & Fa Yuen Street (12-storey); Grampian Road (6-
storey) (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 4)
——2-storey European Type Flats (1962 approved), Suffolk Road (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 5)
——19-Storey Composite Building, 612-618 Nathan Road; 2-storey Residence, Stubbs Road,
The Peak; 2-storey European Type Flats, Keong Hau, Shatin (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol.
17, no. 6)
——2 Blocks of 3-storey European Type Flats (1963 approved), Mt Butler Quarry Road (The
Builder, vol. 18, no. 2)
——Silver Theatre, 88-90 Fu Yan Street, Kwun Tong’s Civic Center; 27-storey Sincere Co. Ltd.,
84-86 Connaught Road Central & 167, 171 & 173 Des Vouex Road Central; 25-storey Composite
Building, Yee Woo Street & Sugar Street (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol.18, no.4)
——3-storey European Type Flats (1963 approved), 10 Shouson Hill Road (The Builder, vol. 18,
no. 5)
——6-storey Factory Building (1964 approved), Wai Yip Street (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 4)
——2-storey Training Center (1966 approved), Mui Wo (Far East Architect & Builder, Jan 1966)
Publications:
——“参观美展建筑部之感想”，《美展》9 期，1929.5.4
——“中国建筑师学会缘起”，《中国建筑》创刊号，1932.11
——“中国的建筑”，《文化建设月刊》1 卷 1 期，1934
——“建筑师应有之认识”，《时事新报》，1933.1.11 等
——“中国建筑之魅力”，（美）《人民论坛》，1933.3；《建筑学报》1990.11 期（张钦
楠译）
——《西班牙式住宅图案》（与林朋（Carl Lindbohm）合编），1934.3
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

22. FAN Zheng, Robert（范政）

Date of birth: 1930
Educational background:

325
 （上海）私立圣约翰大学土木建筑系毕业，学士，1952
（美）哈佛大学设计研究生院（GSD）毕业，建筑硕士，1956
Professional experience:
1956-1958 （美）纽约市 Skidmre, Owings and Merrill 建筑师事务所
1958-1963 （香港）范文照建筑师事务所（Robert Fan Architects and Engineers）
1960-1980 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 117 of 1960
1960- HKSA Member，162
1963-1967 （美）旧金山 Anshen and Allen 建筑师事务所
1967-1974 （美）旧金山 McSweeney and Schuppel 建筑师事务所
1974-1978（美）旧金山 William Schuppel and Associates 建筑师事务所合伙人
1978- （美）旧金山自营 LEE & FAN Architecture & Planning 事务所，合伙人：William
M.S. Lee （李名信）and Doreem Y. Fan（杨展惠，范政之妻）
（美）A.I.A 会员，加利福尼亚州注册建筑师
Awards：
——“Architectural Record Award of Excellence for Design”, “AIA, House and Home” and
“American Home Award of Merit” for Palmetto Dunes Golf Villas, S.C.1971
——Second Prize in “International Competition for a Cultural Center at Plateau Beaubourg,
Paris” out of 682 entries from 46 countries, 1971
——“AIA Citation” for Black River Condominiums, S.C.1975
——“NYSAA/AIA Certificate of Merit for Excellence in Design” for Uptown Racquet Club,
N.Y.1977
——“CSA/AIA Honor Award” for Indian Mountain School Dormitory, Conn.1977
Principal works:
——Chung Chi College(1956-): faulty dormitory, science hall, soccer field, Shatin (The Builder,
vol. 12, no.2), HK
——27-story Sincere’s Company Office Complex, HK
——225-room Grand Hotel, HK
——Bank of National Commerce International, HK
——Stone Flower Mountain Inn, Guangdong, China
——Pepsi Cola Bottling Plant, HK
——Hong Kong Spinners Ltd. Complex
——North Point Methodist Church (1960), 11 Cheung Hong Street (The Builder, vol.15, no.2,
vol.16, no.2, vol.17, no.5)
——Clear Water Bay Country Club, HK
——Private Residential for Mr. and Mrs. T.Y.Wong, Henry Liang, T.C.Yu, K.S.Lo &
W.H.Chow, HK
——Residential: Cliffview mansion, Bisney Villa, Rose Court. Lugard Road Condominium,
Peak Road Apartment and Hongkong Spinners Ltd. Housing, HK
@McSweeney and Schuppel：
——Plaza Towers, Office Building, Sacramento, Calif.
——Park Executive Plaza Office Building, 10th & L Streets, Sacramento, Calif.
——Gramercy Towers Apt. Condo. San Francisco
@William Schuppel and Associates：
——Office Tower, Catalina Drive & Central Ave., Phoenix, Arizona
——Holiday Inn, Union Square, San Francisco
——California First Bank, San Mateo, Calif.
——Master Plan, Hotel, office and shopping center complex, Santa Rosa, Calif.
——Master Plan, 174-room Sheraton Inn, Sunnyvale, Calif.

326
——20-storey Office Building Montgomery Street, San Francisco
@LEE & FAN：
——Land Development and Housing: Palmetto Dunes (House & Home, 1970.5, 1971.8;
Architectural Record, 1970.2, 1972,12; Architectural Record Houses of 1971; Architectural
Forum, 1972.12; Leisure Home Living, 1972-73; Redaktion der Zeitschrift Detail, 1973.12), St.
Johns Resort, Crow Hill, Pocantico Lake, Rhinebeck Farms, Ulster Housing, Wedgefield
Plantation, Black River, TEGA---Cay on Pont Wylie (Architectural Record, 1975.3), Broadway
Apartment, Twenty Oaks, Condominiums, and State University Construction Fund, College at
Purchase, New York
——Educational: Educational Construction Fund, Indian Mountain School (Architectural Record,
1978.6), New York Studio School, and Yale Mathematics Building
——Commercial: Fifth Avenue Racquet Club (Architectural Record, 1977.2), Uptown Racquet
Club, National Amputation Foundation, Lower Manhattan, Air France, in New York City;
American Asian Bank, Apartment Condominiums and Office Complex, High Rise Office
Buildings in Downtown, San Francisco; Palmetto Dunes Golf in South Carolina; Clubhouse
Cathay Manor Restaurant in Tenafly, New Jersey
——Cultural and Recreational: Columbus Park Cultural Recreational Center for New York City,
Place Beaubourg in Paris (Concours International Pour La Realisation du Centre Beaubourg,
1972.6), Rainbow Centre Plaza Competition (Architectural Plus, 1973.4), Buddhist Temple
Renovation, Yale University Soccer and Lacross Stadium, Peninsula Free Methodist Church,
Laurel Hurst Park Tennis Club
——Interior Planning and Design: D.K.G. Advertising, August Associates, Fox Computing
Service, Law Office for Wagman, Cannon & Musoff, Ben and Sanders, Grand Palace Restaurant,
Office Renovations in San Francisco
——Institutional: Vera Institute of Justice, Volunteer Opportunities, Inc., China Institute in
America, Argus Community House
——Private Residential for Mr. and Mrs. William Lee, W.H.Chou, Robert Knapp, C.B.Sung,
Fred Cherry, Chuck Morehouse, Robert Fan, Bruce Noel, S.Lin, Mendosa, R.W. Williams,
Samson Sun, William Weinberg, Robert Huber, John Gokongwei (C.A.); Jon G. Copelin, Leslie
Wheel (Conn.); C.L.Yen, Kurt Hammerstrum (Calif.); Butterheim (Mass.); Peter Ham (N.J.);
Richard Spaulding (N.H.); Arthur Chai-Onn (W.I.); Walter Osborne (MD.) ; William Fern, Leah
Marks, Anthony Prud-homme, John S.H. Russell, James Sheffield, Anthony Paddock, George
Weeks, Leslie Wheel, James Boorsch, William Brees, Charles Burck, Y.M.Diarra, Bob Dylan,
Haliburton Fales II, Davis Gregg III, Michael Hwang, Anthony Lamport, Irving Liebman,
Richard Smith, John Howson and Stonehill Associates Projects (N.Y.)
P.S. The author appreciates Robert FAN Zheng for contributing the above data.

23. IU Po Chiu (姚保照)

Date of birth: 1927.10.1
Nationality: British Subject (Born in Hong Kong, Holder of British Passport No. 10169)
Educational background: 1937-1941 Studied at King’s College, Hong Kong
1942-1945 Studied at Wah Yan College, Hong Kong, and took private tuition in English from
the Canadian Sisters of St. Clare’s School, Hong Kong
1945 Studied at S. Luiz Gonzaga College, S.J., Macau, passing its Senior Class Final
Examination
Sep.1945-Jun.1949 Studied at Lingnan University, Canton, China, conferred the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in the Dept. of Civil Engineering of the College of Science &
Engineering

327
 Sep. 1949-July 1950 Admitted as an internal student to the Faculty of Engineering of the
University of Hong Kong and conferred the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering
Sep.1950-July 1951 Enrolled as an external student in the School of Architecture on the
University of Hong Kong
Agu.1951-June 1952 Attached to the Architect’s Office in the University of Hong Kong,
obtaining training and experience in architectural design, preparation of working drawings,
detailing, building construction and surveying, both in office and field work.
Professional experience:
July 1952-1955- As Architect’s Assistant and Assistant Engineer in the Office of Mr. Iu Tak
Lam, Architect & Civil Engineer
1955-69 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, G. N.470 of 1955
Address: c/o Mr. Iu Tak Lam, Architect & Civil Engineer, 16 Queen’s Road Central, 1st fl.
Hong Kong (1955)
Principal works:
——School building with an auditorium for Pooi To Girls’ Middle School (N.K.I.L.3737
Inverness Road, B.O.O. Ref. 2-3/4644/52) (Surveyor, designer, supervising R.C.C works)
——New theatre building “Kam Wah Theatre” (K.I.L.6442, formerly known as K.M.L.48 Sec.
B, etc., Canton Road & Pitt St. B.O.O. Ref. 3/4529/52) (Supervising R.C.C works)
——Factory building for Messrs. Yee Tin Tong Medical & Perfumery Manufactory (I.L.3539
Sec. A Tong Shui Road & Java Road, B.O.O. Ref.2-3/3707/54) (Designer, supervising R.C.C
works)
——New theatre building “New York Theatre” (I.L.2836 Sec.A ss.10 Hennessy Road, Percival
Street & Lockhart Road, B.O.O. Ref.2-3/2228/53) (Designer, supervising R.C.C works)
——Country House for Lau Chan Kwok, Esq. (Lot Nos.548 & 2051 in D.D.106, Kam Tin, N.T.,
D.A., N.T. Ref. P.S.6/130/48) (Designer, supervising R.C.C works)
——6 Tenement houses (I.L.3504 Sec.A ss.3 and Sec. A R.P. Marble Road, B.O.O.Ref. 2-
3/3643/54) (Designer, supervising works on site)
——New Apartments on Ventris Rd. (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.6; vol.12, no.5)
——Tsung Tsin Mission School (1957) (The Builder, vol.12, no.6)
——New Buildings Celebrate Centenary of Queen’s College (1961) (The Builder, vol.16, no.3)
——London Theatre 伦敦大戏院 (1962) (The Builder, vol.17, no.2; vol.18, no.1)
——New Entertainment Block (1965) (The Builder, vol.1965, no.2)

24. IU Tak-lam（姚德霖）
Date of birth and death: 1905-1965.10.9
Native place:
Educational background: Hong Kong University with degree of B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
Professional experience:
1934-1965 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 198 of 1934
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
Tai Ping Building, Queen’s Rd. Central (1939)
1965 Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——The Latest Addition to Hong Kong’s Entertainment Amenities, “Ritz” (1940) (The Builder,
vol.5, no.4)
——The Ritz Hotel (1941) (The Builder, vol.5, no.6)
——Pooi To Girls’ Middle School, Kowloon (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.4)

328
——Sing Pao Daily News Building 成报(1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.4)
——Kam Wah Theater 金华大戏院(1954) (The Builder, vol.10, no.5)
——The Fung Keong Rubber Factory (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.2)

25. KOO Ming Tsuen (顾名泉)

Date of birth and death: 1916.11.12-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background: 1934-1937 Henry Lester Institute of Technical Education, Shanghai
A.M.I.Struc.E. Certificate, 1941
A.M.I.C.E. Certificate, 1945
Professional experience:
1938 as Surveyor with National Economic Council Highway Bureau, Nanking, Highway
Survey in North China
1939-1940.11 as Student Engineer with Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners Consulting Engineers
London, Engaged in Designs of Industrial Buildings in South Wales, R.C. Structures for
Reading Power Station, Harbor Extension at Sidney, etc.
1940.12-1941.11 as Assistant Engineer with Tees Side Beigde & Eng Works Middlesbrough,
Design of Hangers & Barges
1941.12-1945.11 as Assistant Engineer with British Steel Piling Co. London. Design of
Greenock Harbour, Larne Harbour, etc.
1945.12-1948.9 as Engineer with National Hydroelectric Eng Bureau Nanking
1948.10-1948.11 Hong Kong P.W.D. Port Works Study of Central Reclamation Scheme.
1948-1950 Leigh & Orange Hong Kong
1950-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 621 of 1950
Address: 15B Chatham Road 3rd Floor Kowloon (1950)
Principal works:
——Highway Survey in China
——Design of Industrial Buildings, Hangers & Barges, Harbours in London & Sidney
——Study of Central Reclamation Scheme (@P.W.D.)
——Design of Union Church Kennedy Road (@P.W.D.)
——Supervisor for Construction of Edinburgh House, Queen’s Road Central Hong Kong
(@L&O)

26. KUO Yuan-hsi（过元熙）

Date of birth and death: 1905.5.17-？
Native place: 江苏无锡
Educational background:
（北京）清华学校毕业，1926
（美）宾夕法尼亚大学（U.Penn）建筑系毕业，学士，1926-1929.6.19；麻省 理工
学院（M.I.T.）建筑系毕业，硕士，1930.6
Professional experience: 1926 赴美（The China Weekly Review, Aug. 14, 1926）
1933 在美监造 1933 中国参加芝加哥博览会之热河金亭
北洋工学院教授、建筑处
1934.2 经朱彬、赵深介绍加入中国建筑师学会，后出会
1935.3 经董大酉、童寯 介绍复加入中国建筑师学会

329
 1934.5 实业部工业技师登记
1935.6 应邀参加南京国立中央博物院设计竞赛
广东省立勷勤大学建筑工程系教授（该校 1937 年并入中山大学）
1941.6- 中山大学建筑工程系教授
广州市执业建筑工程师
中国工程师学会会员（1937）
1940-1969 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 592 of 1939
1941- Hong Kong & Far East Builder 中文编辑
1949- 香港王宽诚公司建筑师月付 500 港币（合 2.5 两黄金），解放后，曾回京工
作（张镈《我的建筑创作道路》，（北京）中国建筑工业出版社，1994）
1950 参加香港拔萃男书院新体育馆和教室设计竞赛得头奖
中国建筑学会第二届（1957.2）理事
1957 HKSA Member，81
Adresses：207, Gloucesier Building, Des Voeux Road Central (1959)；
Caroline Mansions, Causeway Bay (1966)；
住香港大潭道 19 号(1966)
Principal works:
——芝加哥仿热河金亭（1933 年芝加哥万国博览会）（《中国建筑》2 卷 1 期，1934.1；
2 卷 2 期，1934.2）
——南京国立中央博物院设计竞赛（1935.6）
——Stanton House (1949) (The Builder, vol.7, no.3; vol.8, no.1)
——Modern private residence (1949), R.B.L.163 Island Road (The Builder, vol. 7, no. 6)
(Contractor: Sun Cheong)
——New School Gymnasium, Extension of Diocesan Boy’s School (1952) (The Builder, vol.9,
no.4)
——Tak Nga Secondary School (1965) (The Builder, vol.1965, no.3)
——Office Plans Announced, Sutherland House (1965) (The Builder, vol.1965, no.2)
——1 European Type House (1954 approved), Oxford Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2, 4)
——2 European Type House (1954 approved), Macdonnell Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2)
——1 Factory (1955 approved), To Kwa Wan Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 4)
——1 School, Tat Chee Avenue; Workers’ Dormitory, Yee On Street & Luen On Street (1960
approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 6)
——Tenement Building (1960 approved), 66-72 Shanghai Street (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 1)
——2-storey Teachers’ Quarters, Cheung Shu Tan, Taipo Road; 3-storey Babies’ Hoom, Cheung
Shu Tan, Taipo Road (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 6)
——3-storey Tenement Building (1961 approved), 35-51 Stanley Village Street (The Builder, vol.
16, no. 3)
——3-storey Tenement Building (1961 approved), 23 Main Street, Stanley (The Builder, vol. 16,
no. 4)
——1-storey Factory Building (1961 approved), Tsuen Wan (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 4)
——3-storey European Type Flats, Stanley Village Road Bk. ‘A’; 6-storey Tenement Building,
22-24 Main Street Aplichau; 5-storey Factory Building, Tsuen Wan (1962 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 16, no. 6)
——1-storey Bungalow (1962 approved), Shan Shek Wan, Lantao Island (The Builder, vol. 17,
no. 4)
——6-storey Tenement Buildings (1963 approved), Ho King Street; 30-32 Main Street, Aplichau
(The Builder, vol. 17, no. 6)

330
——European Type Flats, Cheung Chau (2-storey); Kai Pik Shan, Sai Kung (2-storey); 6-storey
Tenement Building, Tai Po Market (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 6)
——16-storey Composite Building (1963 approved), 3 Chater Road (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 2)
——7-storey European Type Flats (1963 approved), 19 Tai Tam Road Stanley (The Builder, vol.
18, no. 3)
——Factories, Kwun Tong Main Road, KTIL.348 (5-storey); Tsuen Wan Lot 453 (3-
storey)(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 4)
——2 Blocks of 2-storey European Type Flats, Castle Peak Road 91/2 m.s.; 6-storey Tenement
Building, 13-15 Wai Fung Street (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 6)
——1-storey Dangerous Goods Store, Kwun Tong Main Road; 3-storey Dormitory Building, Tat
Chee Avenue (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 4)
Publications:
——“房屋营造与民众生活之关系”，《申报》，1933.8.22、8.29、9.5
——“支加哥百年进步万国博览会”、“博览会陈立各馆营造设计之考虑”，《中国建
筑》2 卷 2 期，1934.2
——“新中国建筑之商榷”，《建筑月刊》2 卷 6 期，1934.6
——“新中国建筑及工作”，《勷大旬刊》14 期，1936.1.11
——“广州市今后之园林建设”，《建筑月刊》4 卷 10 期，1937.2
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

27. KWAN Parker（关荣柏）

Date of birth and death: 1906.3.29-?
Native place: Guangdong Province
Educational background: B.Sc. in C.E., University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A,
1930.5
Professional experience:
1930.6-1934.9 Senior Engineering office Aid-drafting, designing- Calif. State Highway
Commission, S.F. Calif.
1935.8-1936.11 Bridge Engineer, Construction of Caissons & Piers, MacDonald & Gorman
Constr. Co., Canton, China
1936.12-1938.9 Associate Engineer, Surveying, Designing, Borings, Kwang Mei R.R.
Administration, Canton, China
1938.12-1942.9 District Engineer, Designing of Bridges & Culverts; Surveying, Yunnan-
Burma R.R. & Highway Administration, Kunming
1942.9-1946.9 Deputy Executive Engineer, Supervising the Construction of airfields &
operational buildings, Engineer Commission, Chungking
1946.10-1949.6 Practicing Architect-Engineer-Designing & Supervising the Construction of
Buildings, Canton China
1949.9-1951.11 Construction Engineer, Sang Hop Construction Co., Hong Kong
1953-65 Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 566 of 1952
Address: 377 Nathan Road, 2nd Fl. Kowloon (1952)
Principal works:
——Calif. State Highway Commission
——Construction of Caissons & Piers, Designing of Bridges & Culverts, Supervising the
Construction of airfields & operational buildings in China

331
28. KWAN Sung-sing（关颂声）
Date of birth and death: 1892.8.29-1960.11.27
Native place: 广东番禺（Born in Hong Kong）
Educational background:
（北京）清华学校津贴留美自费生，1913
（美）波士顿大学土木工程系，1914；
B.Sc. 1917, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A.
B.Sc. 1918, Harvard University, Cambridge, U.S.A.
Professional experience:
1916 留美中国同学会田径比赛冠军
1919-天津警察厅工程顾问、津浦路考工科技正、内务部土木司技正、北宁路常年
建筑工程师，还曾助理监造北平协和医院工程
1920- Founder and Senior Partner of Kwan, Chu, Yang & Partners with offices in
Peiping, Tientsin, Canton, Hankow, Chungking and Formosa
Also associate with W.H. Kwan in Hongkong, Singapore and Borneo
（南京）首都建设委员会工程组委员
实业部登记，工 23
1928-1938 参加全国大学工学院分系科目表的起草和审查
1930.6 经刘敦桢、卢树森 介绍加入中国建筑师学会
1930- 中国工程学会正会员（建筑）
1932 上海工务局技师开业登记（建筑），10
1932.9 北平市工务局登记技师
1935 天津市工务局建筑技师登记（《天津市工务局业务报告》，1935）
1935 南京征求全国建筑师竞赛国民会议场建筑设计第二奖（第一奖：奚福泉）
1935- 中国营造学社社员
1936 中国建筑展览会征集组主任
重庆市工务局建筑技师登记，16
中国建筑师学会重庆分会会员
中国工程函授学校校董（1943）
1945 中华营建研究会编辑委员会名誉编辑、中国市政工程学会第二届监事
上海市建筑技师公会会员
1946.4 北平市营造业建筑师登记， 甲 1
中国建筑师学会常务理事、基金委员会主任（1946.10.5，上海）
1946.11.11- 国父陵园新村复兴委员会委员
中国建筑师学会常务理事（1948.7，南京）
1948 南京建筑技师工会理事
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
1950-61 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 1127 of 1949 (P.S. Name of local Resident
vouching for identity of applicant: Sir Shouson Chow)
Business Address: 5th Fl. 181 Des Voeux Road C., Hong Kong (1949)
Residence Address: 2nd Fl. 15 Golden Dragon Terrace, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
(1949.8)
Shanghai office: 113 Kiukiang Road (1949.8)
Nanking office: 132 Chung Cheng Road (1949.8)
1949.8.16 与郑定邦、张德霖等发起筹备（台）中华民国建筑学会（黄健敏：“台湾
建筑观察（1895~1998），陈永源主编《中华文化百年论文集》，（台）国立历史

332
 博物馆，1999）
1950 中国建筑师学会登记会员， 后到台湾创办（台）基泰工程公司，任总工程司
1950.12.31 台湾省建筑技师公会成立，与林庆丰、罗阿章担任常务理事（黄健敏：
“台湾建筑观察（1895~1998），陈永源主编《中华文化百年论文集》，（台）国
立历史博物馆，1999）
1959.8- 中华民国建筑学会理事长
1959 获菲律宾建筑师学会名誉会员状，任台湾工业中心董事长、手工业推广中心董
事长
1960 Passed away, buried in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——Continental Bank Building, Tientsin, 1920
——All buildings of Nankai University, 1921-1935
——Muden Railway Terminal Building, 1925
——All buildings N-E University, Muden, 1925-1930
——Purple Hill Observatory, Nanking, 1932
——National Stadium and Swimming Pool, Nanking, 1933
——Library, Science Building and Dormitories, Tsaighua College, Peiping, 1930-1935
——All architectural environments and landscape surrounding of Dr. Sun’ Tomb, Nanking,
1931-1936
——Renovation and restoration of Temple of Heaven and 36 Historical Buildings, Peiping,
1932-1935
——Tan Yen Kai’s Memorial Tomb and Park, Nanking, 1934
——State Theater, Nanking, 1934-1935
——Chung Yang Hospital, Ministry of Health, 1934
——Amonia Sulphate Factory, Pukow, 1934-1935
——International Club, Nanking, 1935
——Kiang Yin Fort, and Speed Boat Base
——O.M.E.A. Building, Nanchang, Kiangsi, 1934-1936
——Italian Aero-Plane Factory, Nanchang, Kiangsi, 1934-1936
——All Buildings Szechuan University, Chengtu, 1934-1940
——Cement Factory, Chungking, 1934-1935
——Power Plant, Chungking, 1933-1935
——Hankow Race Course and R.C.C grand stands, 1935
——Mei Feng Bank, Chungking, 1932-1933
——Central Bank, Farmer’s Bank, Hocheng Bank, Young Brothers’ Bank, all of Chungking,
1933-1940
——Penicilin Factory, Peiping, 1946
——Cement Factory, D.T.T. Plant, Taiwan, 1946-1949
——Huang Poo Harbour Development, Canton, 1948-1949
——Provincial Bank of Kwangtung, Canton, 1948
——Dormitory Buildings for Central Bank, Canton, 1949
——台湾人造纤维公司、各大城市电信局、台北综合运动场、台省立体育场等
Publications:

333
——“中国建筑展览会中国古代建筑模型制造的意义和经过”，上海通社编《旧上海史料
汇编》（下册），（北京）北京图书馆出版社，1998，474-476 页。
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

29. KWAN Wing-hong (关永康)

Date of birth and death: ?- 1973?
Education background: F.R.I.B.A., A.A. Dip.
Professional experience:
W.H.Kwan, A.R.I.B.A., Hong Kong (firm members: LEE, Edward Wei Kwong(李为光，
1952)
W.H. Kwan in Hongkong, Singapore and Borneo, Associate with Kwan Chu Yang in China
1938 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 938 of 1938
Address: 304/5A, Chung Tin Building, Hong Kong (1952)
Principal works:
——Borneo Motors, Gaya Street Restaurant and Shell Transit Camp, Borneo (@by Lee W.K.)
——R.B.L. 514 Deepwater Bay (1949) (The Builder, vol.7, no.4)
——New Buildings in Hong Kong and Kowloon for the Telephone Company (1948) (The
Builder, vol.8, no.1)
——Cameron Mansions (1949) (The Builder, vol.7, no.5; vol.9, no.3)
——War Memorial Welfare Center (1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.4)
——Broad Casting in the Far East (1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.5)
——Amoy Canning Pavilion at CMA Exhibition Designs (1969) (The Builder, vol.1969, no.12)

30. KWOK Tun-Li, Stanley（郭敦礼）

Date of birth: 1927.1.2
Native place: Zhong Shan, Guangdong Province
Educational background:
1941-1944 St. John’s Middle School
1944-1949 St. John’s University, Graduated with the degree of B.Sc. in Architecture
1952-1955 Architectural Association, School of Architecture, London, Graduates with A.A.
Diploma
Passed R.I.B.A. Examination in Professional Practice and Procedure
Professional experience:
Feb., 1949- Aug., 1952 Assistant to Eric Cumine, F.R.I.B.A., A.A. Dip.
July, 1953-Sep.,1953 Assistant in Easton & Robertson London
July, 1954- Assistant to Eric Cumine, F.R.I.B.A., A.A. Dip.
1956- Foundation Member of Hong Kong Society of Architects, No. 8; First Council Member
1955-69 Hong Kong Authorized Architect G. N.1468 of 1954
Part-time studio master at HKU (1957)
1966-1967 Lecture on architecture at HKU (Master Year 1)
Addresses: c/o Eric Cumine, F.R.I.B.A., 14 Embassy Court, Hoiping Road, Hong Kong
(1954)
14 Embassy Court, Hysan Avenue, Hong Kong (1959, 1966)
1966-1967 Partner of Eric Cumine Associates
1966-1967 President of the HKSA
1968- Relocated to Canada
1968-1970 高文拿（Grosvenor International Property）加拿大温哥华分公司副总裁

334
 1970-1979 加拿大自由持有物业（Canadian Freehold Properties） 副总裁
1980-1984 蓬勃路地产发展有限公司（Pendboro Development Company Ltd.） 总裁
1984-1987 不列颠哥伦比亚会场国家企业（British Columbia Place Ltd.） 主席及总裁
1987-1993 太平协和集团（Concord Pacific Developments Ltd.） 副主席
--现任董事会籍（2005 年)： Amara International Investment Corp.;长江实业集团(Cheung
Kong Holdings Ltd.);赫斯基能源(Husky Energy Inc.);中国信托商业银行(加拿大)(CTC
Bank of Canada); B.C.省癌症基金会(B.C. Cancer Foundation);
--曾任董事会籍：太平协和集团 (Concord Pacific Developments Ltd.);86 年世界博览会公
司(Expo ’86 Corp.); 温哥华-惠斯勒 2010 奥运竞投公司(Vancouver-Whistler 2010
Olympics Bid Corp.);满地可银行(Bank of Montreal); B.C.省电气局;温哥华机场管理局；
温哥华基金会;BFC 建筑有限公司; B.C.省商业协会;海外银行;惠斯勒渡假村协会;加拿大
会所（温哥华）;温哥华市发展准核局;温哥华市中心协会;港加商会;中山公园会;城市发
展院;温哥华市中心发展局
--参与组织：国家合一’华人委员会委员(Committee Member of the Chinese Community
Committee on National Unity)；海旁中心年会会议国际小组组员(International Panelist for
The Waterfront Center Annual Conference， Baltimore, Washington, D. C.)；第四届世界
華商大會会议讲员(Featured Speaker in the 4th World Chinese ；Entrepreneurs Convention
in Vancouver)；1992 国际城市设计协会国际小组组员（International Panelist for The
International Association for the Development and Management of Existing and New Towns
Strategic Planning for Madrid, Spain）B.C.省长‘展望 B.C.省未来’高峰会参加者
（ Participant in the Premier’s Summit on the Future of British Columbia in Victoria, British
Columbia)；1991 首席行政官国际会议讲员( Featured Speaker in C.E.O. International
Conference held in Vancouver)；1990 太平洋区协会城市发展国际会议主要讲员(Keynote
Speaker in the Pacific Rim Council on Urban Development International Convention in Los
Angeles, California).
Principal works:
——Matilda and War Memorial Hospital (1952) (The Builder, vol.9, no.4)
——12-Storey Block Breaks Form Mirror Pattern, Dor Fook Mansions (1963) (The Builder,
vol.17, no.6) (with Chang, C.K.)
——Hong Kong College Has Open Air Amphitheatre (1963) (The Builder, vol.18, no.3) (with
Chang, C.K.)
——Harbour Centre (1967-3-35) (The Builder, vol.1967, no.3)
——住宅-香港铜锣湾豪园，大潭红山，香港道馬己仙峽 Magazine Gap Tower，宝云道
Farlane Tower，何文田 Asjoes Mansion，薄扶林多福大厦
——办公-香港皇后大道中蚬壳大厦(1957)， 太平大厦，上海商业银行大厦，德辅道中国保
险商大厦
加拿大多伦多 CIL 总部（CIL Headquarters） （与 Shore Tilby 合作），哈里法斯浦迪码头
（Purdy’s Wharf） ( 与 Shore Tilby 合作)
——酒店-香港酒店，香港弥敦道美丽华酒店附翼，寮国华渣维塔安酒店（Raja Vientiane
Hotel）
加拿大域多利亚三角洲酒店（Delta Inn），多利亚莱奥点酒店（Laurel Point） (与 Romses
Kwan & Assoc 获颁 Canadian Architecture Year Book Award)
——工厂-香港新浦岗 Smart Shirt Building
——学校-岭英中学
——会所-香港九龙塘会所，九龙仔会所
——混合用途-不列颠哥伦比亚本拿比丽晶广场

335
——城市设计-太平协和主要计划（Concord Pacific Master Plan） (获 ISSA ‘洁净世界
奖’Clean World Award）及太平洋岸建筑家会议金奖 (Gold Nugget Award from Pacific Coast
Builders Conference, San Francisco)
——温哥华假小川东南岸（South East Shore of False Creek）
——中东迪拜船湾（Dubai Marina）
P.S. The author appreciates KWOK Tun-Li for contributing the above data.

31. KWONG Pak Chu（邝百铸）

Date of birth and death: 1925.4.26-?
Nationality: British Subject
Educational background:
B. Arch. Sun Yat Sen University, Canton, China, 1945-1949
Master of Architecture, University of Texas, U.S.A., 1951-1952
Professional experience:
1949.6-1951.3 Draughtsman & Designer of Palmer & Turner, Architects, Hong Kong
1952.9-1955.8 Assistant Architect of H. M. Siu Architect’s Office, Hong Kong
1956-69 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 1368 of 1955
Address: 59 Fort Street, 2nd Fl., North Point, Hong Kong (1955)
Principal works:
——Imperial Hotel, KL.(1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.1,2; vol.15, no.6)
——Design Overcome Numerous Problems (1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.2)

32. LAM Chi-kan, Edward (蓝志勤）

Professional experience:
（重庆）兴业建筑师事务所 建筑师
中国建筑师学会重庆分会 会员
1950 年中国建筑师学会登记会员
1948-1953 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 980 of 1948
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. LAI Delin for contributing the data in Chinese.

33. LAMB Ping-yin（林炳贤）

Date of birth and death: 1900.10.5-?
Native place: Guangdong Province (British Subject by Birth at Hong Kong)
Educational background:
Graduate, St. Paul’s College, Hong Kong, 1918
Graduate, Ohio Northern University, Ada, Ohio, U.S.A., B.Sc. Degree, 1922, C.E.Degree,
1932
Passed Special Final Examination of Royal Institute of British Architects in 1936
Elected A.R.I.B.A. same year
Admitted as a registered architect of the Architects Registration Council of the United
Kingdom, 1936
Professional experience:
1923-1929 Practiced as an architect in Tientsin, North China ((天津) 林泰工程公司 工程
师，设计建造 200 余栋居住及非居住建筑，其中半数在英租界)

336
 1929-1948 Joined the Faculty of Tangshan Engineering College, Chiao-tung University,
Tangshan, North China
1929-1940 and Assistant Professor in Building Construction
1940-1948 and Professor of Architectural Engineering
1946-1948 and Head of Architectural Department
(交通大学唐山工学院教师；1929-1940 建筑构造助理教授；1940-1948 建筑工程教授，
教授建筑工程、市政工程；1946.10-1948 建筑工程系主任)
中国工程师学会正会员（土木、建筑，1934）
1936 通过（英）皇家建筑师学会（R.I.B.A.）考试，同年当选 A.R.I.B.A.，（英）注册
建筑师
1948- 香港女青年会、基督教圣公堂设计竞赛首奖（与佘畯南 合作）
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
1949-1980 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 667 of 1949
（香港）Messrs. Hazeland & Co.事务所从业人员
1959 HKSA Member，146
Addresses: 1 Kent Road, Kowloon Tong (1949)
Chungking Mansion B-8 (4th floor), 36/44 Nathan Road, Kowloon (1966)
Principal works:
——Y.M.C.A. Hostel (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.2)
——Wong Shiu Chee Middle School Makes Full Use of Ideal Setting over Tolo Harbour (1961)
(The Builder, vol.16, no.4)
——Wing Kwai Factory Flats (1964) (The Builder, vol.18, no.5)
——Architect Designs Three Lutheran Buildings- Two Completed at Cost of $1,000,000 (The
Concordia Lutheran Seminary at 70 Begonia Road, Yau Yat Chuen; Sham Shui Po Faith
Lutheran School and Church 信义会深信堂; and Lutheran Middle School for Fanling, 270
Jockey Club Road) (1964) (The Builder, vol.18, no.6)
——Fanling Lutheran School (1964) (The Builder, vol.19, no.3)
——Y.M.C.A. Hostel (1953), Garden Road & Macdonnell Road; European Type Houses, N. of
Boundary Street; Cassia Road; Bowen Road; Wong Ma Kok Road; Tat Chee Road; 1 Workshop;
Tong Mi Road; 1 School, Leighton Road; 1 Apartment Building, Macdonnell Road (1954
approved) (The Builder, vol. 10, no. 2)
——1 European Type House (1954-55 approved), Dianthus Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2, 4)
——Apartment Buildings (1954-56 approved), Waterloo Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2, vol.
12, no. 3)
——European Type Houses, Java Road (8 Blocks); Beacon Hill; Stanley; 1 Apartment, Tin Hau
Temple Road (1955 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 4)
——European Type Houses (1955-57 approved), Macdonell Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5,
vol. 12, no. 7)
——European Type Houses (1955-56 approved), Purves Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5, vol.
12, no. 4)
——1 Godown, To Kwa Wan Road; 1 Factory, Java Road; Chinese Type Houses, Mok Cheung
Street (2 Blocks); Ha Heung Road (7 Blocks) (1955 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5)
——1 Workshop, Ngau Chi Wan; 1 Factory, Fuk Wing Street; Chinese Type Houses, Tai Kok
Tsui Road (2 Blocks); Hing Fat Street (10 Blocks) (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6)
——1 Chinese Type House (1956 approved), Electric Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 1)
——1 Chinese Type House (1956 approved), Ngau Chi Wan (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 3)
——1 Welfare Building, Lun kong Road; 2 Chinese Type House, Station Lane (1956 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 12, no. 4)

337
——Chinese Type Houses, Nathan Road; Wellington Street; 1 Factory, Walnut Street; 1 School,
Tai Hang Tung Road (1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 5)
——European Type Houses (1957 approved), Mosque Street (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 6, vol. 13,
no. 1)
——Chinese Type Houses, Hai Tan Street (6 Blocks); Fa Yuen Street (3 Blocks); 1 Apartment,
Ma Tau Wei Road (1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 6)
——European Type Houses, Queen’s Road East (2 Blocks); Island Road; 5-7, Belfran Road (2
Blocks); 3 Block of Flats, Lok Shan Road & To Kwa Wan Road; 18 Chinese Type House, Tam
Kung Road (1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 1)
——1 Apartment, 1 Ping On Lane; 1 Tenement Building, 569, Nathan Road; 2 European Type
House, 228 & 230 Third Road (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 5)
——Chinese Type Houses, 18-20 Elgin Street (2 Blocks); 155 & 157 Queen’s Road East (2
Blocks); 4 European Type House, Ma Tau Chung Road (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no.
6)
——2 Chinese Type House (1959 approved), Sycamore Street (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 2)
——2 Stores, Victoria Road, Kai Lung Wan; 2 Composite Building, Nathan Road- Chung King
Arcade; 1 Apartment, Lancashire Road (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 3)
——Extension to Existing Factory (1959 approved), Un Chau Street & Wing Lung Street (The
Builder, vol. 14, no. 5)
——Workshop (1960 approved), 124-8 Bedford Road and Maple Street (The Builder, vol. 15, no.
1)
——Schools, Ma Tau Wei Road; Kun Tong Road (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 2)
——Extension to school & church (1960 approved), 77 Spring Garden Lane (The Builder, vol. 15,
no. 4)
——9-storey Factory (1961 approved), Wing Hong Street (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 6)
——8-storey Factory, Smithfield Road; 1-storey School, Tai Kiu Chuen, Yuen Long (1961
approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 2)
——2-storey European Type House (1961-62 approved), Pak Tin, Shatin (The Builder, vol. 16,
no. 3, vol. 17, no. 4)
——9-storey Tenement Building, 41-43 Shanghai Street; Factory Buildings, Bedford Road(7-
storey);Cheung Sha Wan Road (7-storey) (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 3)
——Wong Shiu Chi Secondary School, 182 Kwong Fuk Road, Tai Po; 4-storey School Building,
Pak Yin Street (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 4)
——9-storey Tenement Building (1962 approved), J/O Ha Heung Road & Sze Chuen Street (The
Builder, vol. 16, no. 6)
——6-storey Tenement Building (1962 approved), 197 Shanghai Street (The Builder, vol. 17, no.
2)
——Fanling Lutheran Secondary School (1962 approved), 270 Jockey Club Road (The Builder,
vol. 17, no. 3, vol. 19, no. 3)
——1-storey Church & Pastors’ Flat (1962 approved), Man Kum To Road, Sheung Shui (The
Builder, vol. 17, no. 3)
——1-storey School Building, Rennies Mill Village; Tenement Buildings, 17-19 Kowloon City
Road(9-storey); 283-285 Portland Street(6-storey)(1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 4)
——13-storey Tenement Building (1962 approved), 57-65 Lai Chi Kok Road (The Builder, vol.
17, no. 4, vol. 17, no.5)
——Tenement Buildings, 6-8 Bedford Road (8-storey); Fung Wong Village (6-storey); 9-storey
Composite Building, 15 Saigon Street; 5-storey Factory Building, Tsun Yip Street; European
Type Flats, 8 & 9 Bowen Road (22-storey);Tan Kwai Tsuen, Ping Shan (2-storey)(1962 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 17, no.5)

338
——European Type Flats, 3 St. Stephen’s Lane (6-storey); 345-347 Prince Edward Road (13-
storey); 9-storey Tenement Building, 179-181 Cheung Sha Wan Road (1963 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 17, no. 6)
——8-storey Tenement Building (1963 approved), 42 Bedford Road (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 1)
——8-storey Factory Building (1963 approved), Kwan Tong KTIL. 206 (The Builder, vol. 18, no.
2)
——9-storey Tenement Building (1963 approved), 63-65 Tak Ku Ling Road (The Builder, vol.
18, no. 3)
——10-storey Tenement Building (1963 approved), 43-45 Shek Kip Mei Street (The Builder, vol.
18, no. 4)
——Factory Buildings, Mong Kok Road (9-storey); Hung To Road (2-storey); Faith Lutheran
Church & School, Sham Shui Po; Concordia Lutheran Seminary, 70 Begonia Road (1964
approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 6)
——5-storey Tenement Building (1964 approved), 13 Lower Lascar Road (The Builder, vol. 19,
no. 2)
——2-storey Residence (1964 approved), Pak Sha Wan, Sai Kung (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 3)
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

34. LAU Tang, Rudy（刘登)

Date of birth and death: 1910-?
Native place: 广东新会
Educational background: （美）密西根大学（U. Michigan）土木工程硕士
Professional experience:
（美）第十四航空队机场工程师
（重庆）兴业建筑师事务所 工程师
1942.10 经济部登记，工 746
自营（广州）宏益工程师事务所，1945.11 广州市工务局建筑技师申请领证开业，
甲 1001
1947-1980 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 508 of 1947（firm members: David
WONG Chung Hong）
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
Principal works:
——（九龙）One block of 10 flats, Four European type houses of 16 flats, K.I.L. 3903
Waterloo Road （David WONG Chung Hong 设计）
——1 block of 10 flats in K.I.L. 3903 Waterloo Road, Kowloon; 4 European type houses of 16
flats in K.I.L. 3903 Waterloo Road, Kowloon (April, 1954-Oct., 1954, Assisted by David WONG
Chung Hong)
——On Wah Yan College, Hong Kong, New Central Government Office, British North Borneo
and various works in course of preparation (Oct.,1954-1956, Assisted by David WONG Chung
Hong)
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. LAI Delin for contributing the data in Chinese.

35. LEE Tuh-Fuh (李德复）

Date of birth and death: 1911.5.5-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background:

339
 Graduated from St. John’s University, with B.Sc. in C.E., 1934
Diploma Imperial College of Science & Technology, London University
Associate Member, Institution of Structural Engineers, 1937
Professional experience:
Worked in Dorman Long Plant, London; Cleveland Bridge Co., Darlington, as Designer.
Assistant Engineer on Canton Hankow Railway, repairing bomb wrecked bridges under
Japanese air bombardments
Associate Engineer on Suifu Kunming Railway, and Chief of Surveying Party for the 7th
Division
Head of Design Department, Engineering Division, Shanghai-Nanking-Hangchow Railways
Construction Engineer, Ting Hsin Cotton Mill, Shanghai
1949-50, 59-65 Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 1558 of 1958
Addresses: 66 Fah Hui Road, Kowloon (1949)
Temporary office: c/o H.S. Luke, 601 Pedder Building (1949)
Principal works:
——Helped in design of Sammanoud Swing Bridge, Egypt; Quasi Arc Welding Co., London
Bridges, railways (China)
Publications
—— “Repairing Bomb Wrecked Bridges on Canton Hankow Railways”, Structural Engineer,
1938.2

36. LEE Wei Kwong, Edward (李为光)

Date of birth and death: 1919.6.20-?
Nationality: China
Educational background:
B. Arch. Sun Yat Sen University, China, 1941,6
M. Arch. University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 1949.6
Professional experience:
1941.8-1947.6 National 24th Steel Mfg. Co., Chungking, China
1949.7-1950.10 Davis, Poole, and Sloan A.I.A., Philadelphia, U.S.A.
1950.11-1951.2 Howell Lewis Shay, A.I.A., Philadelphia, U.S.A.
1951.7-1952 W.H.Kwan, A.R.I.B.A., Hong Kong
1953-69 Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 988 of 1952
1964 President of the HKSA
Address: 3rd Fl., 274, Castle Peak Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong (1952)
Principal works:
Martin Steel Plant, Workers’ Dormitory, Welfare Building and Auditorium (Architect in
Charge, @ Chungking)
Philadelphia State Hospital (designer and draftsman, @ Davis, Poole, and Sloan)
Neither Providence High School (Checker and draftsman @ Howell Lewis Shay)
Borneo Motors, Gaya Street Restaurant and Shell Transit Camp, Borneo (@W.H.Kwan)
Principal works:
——The Park Hotel (1958) (The Builder, vol.13, no.2; vol.15, no.6)
——Alhambra Building (1958) (The Builder, vol.13, no.5)
——Park View? (1961) (The Builder, vol.16, no.3)
——Honeycomb Design Used for Split-level Luxury Apartments (Woodland Heights) (1963)
(The Builder, vol.18, no.3) (with Wong, William Jr.)

340
37. LEE Yin-chuen（李衍铨）
Date of birth and death: 1917.5.11-?
Nationality: Chinese
Professional experience:
1938.8-1941.12 Davies, Brooke & Gran, Architects, Hong Kong
（广州）彭涤奴 建筑师事务所从业人员
1946.7-1953 Leigh & Orange, Engineers & Architects
1955-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 450 of 1955
Address: c/o Leigh & Orange, Engineers & Architects, P. & O. Building, 6th Fl., Hong Kong
(1953)
Principal works:
@ pre-war
——Development on I.L. 5042, 5082 Bloom Road for Eu Tong Sen Ltd. Design of site formation
& the structural frames for 5 blocks of flats, calculated and prepared working details
Stables “C Block” for HK Jockey Club on I.L. 3053 Shan Kwong Road. Design the structural
frames, calculated & prepared working details
@ post-war
——Office building “Edinburgh House” for HK Land Investment & Agency Co. Ltd. on M.L.2
Sec. A&B, Queen’s Road, April 1948. Prepared architectural working drawings
——Factory for China Oxygen & Acetylene on K.M.L.69 & 80 Ma Tau Wei Road, Dec. 1948.
Prepared Architectural drawings and design the structural frames, calculated & prepared working
details & supervision
——Godowns for British Cigarettes Co. Ltd. on I.L. 6303 & 2835 R.P., Gloucester Road, March
1949, Prepared architectural working drawings and design the structural frames, calculated &
prepared working details
——Development on I.L. 6624, King’s Road for HK Electric Co. Ltd., March 1951. To design
the site formation together with 3 blocks of quarters. Design all architectural layout plan,
detailing, and structural framing, calculation of stress, bills of quantities, specification and
supervision of work
——Office building “Caxton House” on I.L. 30 Sec.B & 525, Duddell Street for Local Printing
Press, Oct. 1952. Design the structural frame, calculated and prepared working details.
——Prince Edward Road Apartment (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.1)
——Begonia Road Co-operative Housing Scheme (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.1)
——Residence with an Enviable Location (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.5)
——Building Societies’ Apartment Blocks (1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.2)

38. LEE Young On（李扬安）

Date of birth and death: 1902.8.26-1979
Native place: 广东台山（生于纽约）
Educational background:
Canton Christian College
（美）宾夕法尼亚大学（U.Penn）建筑系毕业，学士，1923-1927.6.15；硕士，
1928.6.20
Professional experience:
在美国建筑绘图员 2 年半
1930.8-经李锦沛、赵深 介绍加入中国建筑师学会
1932 上海工务局技师开业登记（建筑），115

341
 -1935.1（上海）李锦沛建筑师事务所
1934-中国工程师学会正会员
1935 脱离李锦沛自办事务所
1939-1979 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 730 of 1938
1945-来港
1959 HKSA Member，71
Address: 2, Wood Road, Wanchai (1938)；
401, Alexandra House, Des Voeux Road Central (1959,1966)
1979 Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——南京聚兴城银行（与李锦沛合作，《中国建筑》2 卷 4 期，1934.4）（Young
Brothers Bank, 《建筑月刊》2 卷 5 号，1934.5）
——Apartments (1957) (The Builder, vol.12, no.5)
——Chien Ai Hospital, Fanling, NT. (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.4)
——European Houses, N.K.I.L. 1931, Prince Edward Road, Kowloon (2 Blocks); K.I.L. 4124,
Chatham Road, Kowloon; Chinese Houses, I.L. 765, Queen’s Road, East (3 Blocks); K.I.L. 4045,
Ma Tau Chung Road, Kowloon (4 Blocks); N.K.I.L. 2012, Nga Tsin Wei Road, Kowloon (3
Blocks); M.L. 437, Lockhart Road, Wanchai (6 Blocks); True Light Primary School, 75, Caine
Road (1939 approved) (The Builder, vol. 4, no.3)
——1 European Residence, K.I.L. 4036 Sec, A, Argyle Street, Kowloon; Chinese Houses,
N.K.I.L. 2696, Nga Tsin Wei Road, Kowloon (3 Blocks); D.D. 120, Tai Tseung Street & New
Market Street, Un Long, New Territories (8 Blocks) (1939 approved) (The Builder, vol. 4, no.4)
——European Residence, K.I.L. 4207, Argyle Street, Kowloon; N.K.I.L. 2763, Chuk Un,
Kowloon; 2 Chinese tenement houses, N.K.I.L. 2065, Nga Tsin Wei Road, Kowloon; Alterations
and Additions to Chinese Houses, K.I.L. 2114, at the junction of Kowloon City and Lok Shan
Rds., To Kwa Wan (3 Blocks); K.I.L. 1361, Shanghai Street, Mong Kok; (1940 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 5, no.4)
——Alterations and Additions to European Residence, R.B.L. 352, Shouson Hill Road;
Workshop for Rice Mill, N.K.I.L. 228, Kowloon Cit; 2 Buildings for shops and offices, I.L.’s 549
& 550, Queen’s Road Central; 5 Domestic and 2 Non-Domestic Buildings, Lots 930D, 931C,
932C-J, D.D. 120, Un Long, New Territories (1940 approved) (The Builder, vol. 5, no.6)
——Rubber Shoes Factory, N.K.I.L.1969, Ngau Chi Wan, Kowloon; 4 Chinese House,
N.K.I.L.2789, Castle Peak Road, Kowloon (1941 approved) (The Builder, vol. 6, no.1)
——1 European Residence (1941 approved), K.I.L.4275 (off Prince Edward Road), Kowloon
(The Builder, vol. 6, no.2)
——3 Chinese House, Playing Field Road, K.I.L.4306 Kowloon; 6 Godowns, N.K.I.L.2811
Castle Peak Road; 4 House & 1 Godown, N.K.I.L.2816 Shun Ning Street and Wing Fung Street
(1941approved) (The Builder, vol. 6, no.3)
——Alterations in R.C.C., K.I.L.1459 R.P., Nos. 3, 5 & 7 Sung Street; Soy Factory, N.K.I.L.
2812 Sec. B., Wing Hong Street; 2 Houses D.D.120 Lots 3524 & 3525, Un Long Market;
Knitting Factory, N.K.I.L.2814 Un Chau Street and Hing Wah Street (1941 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 6, no.4)
——European Type Houses, Waterloo Road (4 Blocks); Cambridge & Durham Roads (2 Blocks);
Kwan Yick Street (4 Blocks); Verbena Road; Fa Yuen Street (2 Blocks); Shops, Oxford & Moray
Roads; Cambridge Road (2 Blocks); Chinese Type Houses, Fuk Wah Street (3 Blocks); Fuk
Wing Street (6 Blocks) (1954 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2)
——European Type Houses (1954-56 approved), Broadwood Road (5#) (The Builder, vol. 11, no.
2, 6, vol. 12, no. 5)

342
——Chinese Type Houses, Lee Yuen Street East; Winslow Street (2 Blocks); Back Street;
Mosque Street (2 Blocks); Shanghai Street (2 Blocks); European Type Houses, Prince Edward
Road (4 Blocks); Prat Avenue (2 Blocks); 1 Workshop, Victoria Road (1955 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 11, no. 4)
——Chinese Type Houses, Tunglowan Road; Wanchai Road; Taipo Road (2 Blocks); Nan
Cheong Street (5 Blocks); Porland Street (2 Blocks); Nan On Street (6 Blocks); Queen’s Road
West (4 Blocks); Shaukiwan Street (3 Blocks); Pei Ho Street (6 Blocks); Office Buildings,
Bonham Strand East; Wyndham Street; Apartment Building, Boundary Street (1955 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5)
——European Type Houses (1955-56 approved), Tai Po Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5, vol.
12, no. 4)
——1 Office Building, D’Aguilar Road; European Type Houses, Sai Yee Street (4 Blocks);
Suffolk Road; 2 Chinese Type House, Center Street; 1 Workshop; Ngau Tau Kok (1956 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6)
——Chinese Type Houses (1956 approved), First Street (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6, vol. 12, no.
3)
——1 Chinese Type House (1956 approved), Electric Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 1)
——1 School (1956 approved), Shun Ning Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 2)
——1 European Type House (1956 approved), Purves Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 2, 3)
——Chinese Type Houses, Un Chau Street; Factory Street (8 Blocks); Min Fat Street (2 Blocks);
Third Street (2 Blocks); 1 Office Building, Chung Ching Street (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol.
12, no. 3)
——4 European Type House, Electric Road; Chinese Type Houses, Lee Yuen Street East; Nan
Chang Street (5 Blocks); Pei Ho Street (6 Blocks); Shaukiwan Road (2 Blocks) (1956
approved)(The Builder, vol. 12, no. 4)
——Chinese Type Houses, Gage Street; Un Chau Street (10 Blocks); 1 Workshop, Winslow
Street (1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 5)
——2 Chinese Type House (1957 approved), Cheung Sha Wan Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 6)
——4 Chinese Type House (1957 approved), Wun Sha Street (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 1)
——2 Chinese Type House, 2-3 Tien Poa Street; 1 Vocational Center, Tai Hang Tung Road; 1
Office, Tsat Tse Mui Road (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 5)
——1 Chinese Type House (1958 approved), 129 Des Voeux Road West (The Builder, vol. 13,
no. 5, 6)
——Tenement Buildings, 21-23 Wong Chuk Street; 203-206 Tai Nan Street; 1 Apartment
Building, 133-139 Electric Road; 2 Chinese Type House, 29-31 Stone Nullah Lane; 1 Office
Building, 67 Queen’s Road East (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 6)
——3 European Type House, Happy View Terrace, Broadwood Road; 11 Shops, Fuk Wing
Street; 1 Tenement Building, 31 Ha Heung Road (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 1)
——1 School, Pokfulam Road; North Point Methodist Primary School, Cheung Hong Street
(1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 2)
——1 Tenement Building (1959 approved), 33 Castle Peak Road (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 3)
——1 Office Building, 11 Li Yuen Street East; 1 Apartment Building, 27-29 Seymour Road; 1
Factory, Pau Chang Street & Kowloon City Road (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 4)
——Tenement Buildings, 2 Wood Road; 2 Lau Li Street (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15,
no. 3)
——2 European Type Flats (1960 approved), 83-91 Waterloo Road (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 5,
vol. 16, no. 1)
——Tenement Buildings, 1 Wing Fung Street; 157-165 Sai Young Choi Street (1960 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 15, no. 5)

343
——1-storey Film Store, Victoria Road, Pokfulam; 9-storey Tenement Building, 67-73 Queen’s
Road East; 1-storey European Type Flats, Lok Lo Ha, Shatin; 2-storey Servants’ Quarters for
Lutheran World Fed., Failing (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 1)
——Apartment Buildings, 105 Austin Road (11-storey); 197-199 Prince Edward Road (13-storey)
(1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 2)
——Tenement Buildings, 30-32 Yik Yam Street (6-storey); 312 Nathan Road (14-storey) (1961
approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 3)
——13-storey Apartment Building, 126-128 Argyle Street; 10-storey Tenement Building, 41
Wong Chuk Street (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 4)
——8-storey European Type Flats, 39 Seymour Road & 134 Caine Road; 1 Ossarium, Pokfulam
Road; 1-storey Youth Center, Lam Kam Road, Kam Tin (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16,
no. 6)
——6-storey Tenement Building (1962 approved), 11 Tak Hing Street (The Builder, vol. 17, no.
1)
——12-storey Tenement Building, 447 & 449 Lockhart Road; 6-storey Composite Building, 91-
93 Wellington Street (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 3)
——Tenement Buildings, 153-159 Tung Choi Street (9-storey); Fung Wong Village (6-storey); 1
Tak Hing Street (6-storey) (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no.4)
——Tenement Buildings, 40-44 Jordan Road (17-storey); 836-838 Canton Road (8-storey); 211-
213 Temple Street (6-storey); 9-11 Fuk Wa Street (9-storey); 209-211 Yu Chau Street (6-storey);
14-storey European Type Flats, Lai Chi Kok Road (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 6)
——Tenement Buildings, 318-322 Ma Tau Wei Road (18-storey) ; 187-189 Cheung Sha Wan
Road (13-storey); 1038-1040 Canton Road (6-storey); 7-storey Composite Building, 152-154
Johnston Road; 2-storey Rehabilitation Centre, So Kun Wat (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol.
18, no.1)
——Composite Buildings, 33-35 Leighton Road (11-storey); 167-169 Lockhart Road (13-storey)
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 2)
——Tenement Buildings, 207-209 Fa Yuen Street (10-storey); 102 Nan Chang Street (6-storey);
39 Yiu Wa Street (6-storey); 172-174 Tai Nan Street (9-storey); Pak She, Cheung Chau
Resettlement Scheme (2-storey); 7-storey European Type Flats, 11 Tak Hing Street; 1-storey
Chapel, Ping Chau Island (Tai Tong) (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 3)
——4-storey Additional School Building (1963 approved), 45-47 Grampian Road (The Builder,
vol. 18, no. 4)
——Tenement Buildings, 46-48 Gage Street (6-storey); 10-12 Li Chit Street (6-storey); 10-storey
Factory Building, Kwun Tong Road (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 2)
—— 北角卫理堂车房教会（1953），卫斯理村（1955），亚斯理村，爱华村等堂校 (First
hand materials provided by Rev. Lam at the North Point Methodist Church)
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

39. LEONG Yet alias Leong Bing Shang (梁业)

Date of birth and death: 1912.8.15-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background: 3-year Certificate in Architecture, Pratt Institute, N.Y., 1934
Degree of Bachelor of Architecture, Pratt Institute, N.Y., 1939
Certificate in Timber & Concrete Design of Struct. Engineering, Engineering School, Tufts
College, Mass., 1943
Concrete Design, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mass. 1943
Professional experience:
1927 Part-time drafsman in the office of Schultze & Weaver, Architects of New York,

344
 1934 Assistant architect in the office of P.G. Lee, Architect & Engineer of Shanghai, China
1937 Architect in the Canton Trust Co., Ltd. of Canton
1939 Architect in the office of Schultze & Weaver, Architects of New York
1941 Estimator in Briggs Engineering Corp. of Bridgeport, Conn., estimating & supervising
of war-plants construction
1942 Steel and reinforced concrete structural designer in E.B. Badgers & Sons Co., Boston
1945 Stresses analysis of air-craft design in the office of Jordanoff Corporation, N.Y.
1947 Architect & Struct. Designer in the office of M.E. Wrights, Architects, Richmond, Va.
1950-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 1152 of 1949 (P.S. Local Resident vouching:
Y.O. Lee)
Address: 2nd Fl. 141 Prince Edward Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong (1949)
Principal works:
——Participated the Waldorf Astoria Hotel working drawings (@Schultze & Weaver, Architects,
1927)
——Designed the Yonkers Hospital, the 35-block Housing project as Alexander, Va. (@Schultze
& Weaver, Architects, 1939)
——Design of war plants, high octane gas plants, explosive plants, synthetic-rubber plants for the
U.S. Government & under the (Lend-Lease Bill) for USSR and Great Britain, the Anglo-Iranian
Oil Co., & Standard Oil co. (@E.B. Badgers & Sons Co.)
——Designed the new Air-terminus at Byrd Air-port, Richmond, Va. (@M.E. Wrights,
Architects)

40. LI Sheung Ngai (李尚毅)

Date of birth: 1921.4.16-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background: 1925-1931 Ching Woo School, Kowloon
1932-1938 Government Vernacular Middle School, Sai ying poon
Sep. 1938 Matriculated into Hong Kong University
Dec.1941 Graduated from Hong Kong University with degree of B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
Professional experience:
Sep.1942-Aug.1944 Assistant Engineer, The Kwangsi Enterprises Corporation, Keilin, China,
engaged in designing brick & timber buildings & factories.
Feb.1946-Nov.1946 Assistant Engineer, The Canton-Hankow Railways, engaged in
maintenance works.
Nov.1946-Oct.1947 Assistant Engineer, Messrs. Palmer & Tutner Architects, H.K. engaged
in surveying and design work for Reinforced Concrete Structures.
Nov.1947-1952- Engineer, Messrs. Chau & Lee Architects, Hong Kong, engaged in
preparation of design and working drawings for buildings, structural design & supervision of
buildings during construction, surveying & preparation of site formation plans, and taking of
quantities.
1948.12 Foundation Members of the Engineering Society of Hong Kong
1953-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), G. N.204 of 1953 (P.S. Local Resident
vouching: I.N. Chau)
Address: c/o Chau & Lee Architects, Chung Tin Building, Hong Kong (1949)
Principal works:
(Nov.1947-1952 Engineer, Messrs. Chau & Lee Architects, Hong Kong)
Public buildings
——The Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank, Kowloon Branch, Nathan Road on K.I.L.1260 (B.O.O.
Ref. No. 5&6/4406/49)

345
——The Headquarters Building for The Hong Kong Anti-T.B. Association, Queen’s Road East
on I.L.86 (B.O.O. Ref. No.3/2285/50)
——Nurses’ Quarters for The Kwong Wah Hospital, Kwong Wah Street on K.G.L. No.3 (B.O.O.
Ref. No.3/5060/49)
——Office & Printing Works for The Wah Kiu Yat Po, Hollywood Road on I.L.218 Secs. B. &
C (B.O.O. Ref. No.3/2269/50)
——Chapel & Flats for The Norwegian Seamen’s Mission, Cox’s Road on K.I.L.6232 (B.O.O.
Ref. No.3/4911/50)
——Nurses’ Quarters for The Kwong Wah Eastern Hospital, Causeway Bay on I.L. No.2686
(B.O.O. Ref. No.1&2/3833/51)
Theaters
——The Liberty Theatre, 1120seats, Jordan Road on K.I.L.1161 (B.O.O. Ref. No. 222K(5&6)/48)
——The Broadway Theatre & Offices, 1050 seats, Nathan Road on K.I.L.1260 (B.O.O. Ref.
No.5&6/4407/49)
——The Capitol Theatre, 1400, seats, Jardine’s Bazaar on I.L.81, R.P. (B.O.O. Ref.
No.452H(3)/48)
Factories & Godowns
——2-storey Godown for Messrs. Cyba & Co., Wuhu Street on H.H.I.L. 236 & 237 (B.O.O. Ref.
No.591K in 1/48)
——1-storey Factory for manufacturing metal goods, Castle Peak Road on N.K.I.L. 2213 (B.O.O.
Ref. No.5&6/4473/49)
——2-storey Workshop & Office for The Hong Kong Shipyard, Tai Kok Tsui Road on K.M.L.77
(B.O.O. Ref. No.3/4730/50)
——8-storey Godown for Messrs. Lui Hing Hop & Co., Praya Kennedy Town on M.L. 263
(B.O.O. Ref. No.2/2284/52)
Schools
——Kindergarten School for St. Stephen’s Girls’ College, Park Road on I.L. 2440 (B.O.O. Ref.
No.974H in 1/48)
——The Hong Kong School for the Deaf, Diamond Hill on N.K.O.L.3511 (B.O.O. Ref. No.874H
in 1/48)
——Hostel for Preparatory School, St. Stephen’s College, Stanley on R.B.L.432 (B.O.O. Ref.
No.873H in 1/48 & 3/3883/49)
——Junior School for St. Stephen’s College, Stanley on R.B.L.432 (B.O.O. Ref. No. 874H in
1/48)
——The Un Long Middle School, Un Long, New Territories
European type apartment houses
——4 semi-detached houses at Prince Edward Road on K.I.L.4234 (B.O.O. Ref. No. 408K in
1/48)
——Housing Scheme for 35 houses (140 European flats) at Boundary Street on K.I.L.6039
(B.O.O. Ref. No. 60K(3)/48)
——Ten 4-storey houses for 40 European flats at Java Road on M.L.431, R.P. (B.O.O. Ref. No.
1158H in 1/48)
——Fifteen 4-storey houses for 60 flats at Castle Peak Road on N.K.I.L.2680&2715 (B.O.O. Ref.
No. 3/4517/49)
European type residences
——Residences for M.N. Lo, Esq., Kadoorie Avenue on K.I.L. 2657 (B.O.O. Ref. No. 81K in
1/48)

346
——Residences for J.H. Ruttonjee, Esq., Wong Ma Kok Road, Stanley on R.B.L. 539 and R.B.L.
432 Sec. A (B.O.O. Ref. No. 2/3728/49)
——Residences for C.L. Hsu, Esq., Blue Pool Road on I.L. 5747 Sec. D (B.O.O. Ref. No.
3/3725/49)
——Vice-Chancellor’s Lodge, Hong Kong University, Kotewall Road on I.L.1877 (B.O.O. Ref.
No. 2&3/2862/49)
——Residences for Dr. W.N. Chau, Jardine’s Lookout on I.L.6391 (B.O.O. Ref. No. 2/3831/51)
——Residences for H.S. Chan, Esq., Braga Circuit on K.I.L. 2657 Sec. A, R.P. (B.O.O. Ref. No.
2/4237/51)
Chinese tenement houses
——Five 4-storey houses at Hau Wo Street on I.L.1297 Sec. B, R.P. & Sec. C, s.s. 3, R.P.
(B.O.O. Ref. No. 981H in 1/48)
——Eight 4-storey houses at Jardine’s Bazaar on I.L. 81 R.P. (B.O.O. Ref. No. 964H in 1/48)
——Housing Scheme of 40 houses for 160 flats, Nan Chang Street on N.K.I.L.3586 (B.O.O. Ref.
No. 2/4473/50 & 2/4426/51)
——Four 4-storey houses at Shun Ning Road on N.K.I.L. 3651 (B.O.O. Ref. No. 2/4643/51)
Site formation work
——Extension to I.L. 5258, King’s Road (B.O.O. Ref. No. 856H in 1/47)
——Building Scheme for 9 European Type Residences, King’s Road on I.L. 6469 to 6477
(B.O.O. Ref. No. 92/5645/49)
——Building Scheme for 10 European Type Residences, Repulse Bay Road on R.B.L.577 to 586
(B.O.O. Ref. No. 1/3576/51)
Addition & Alteration works
——Extension to Basement Vault for The Bank of Canton Building, Des Voeux Road on M.L.
102 Sec. A, R.P. (B.O.O. Ref. No. 233H in 1/48)
——Reinstatement of 2Chinese houses, Ship Street on M.L. 36 Sec. B, s.s. 4 (B.O.O. Ref. No.
3/2559/49)
——Alterations & Extensions to The Star Theatre, Hankow Road on K.I.L.526 R.P. (B.O.O. Ref.
No. 3/4120/50)

41. LI Wen-Pang (李文邦)

Date of birth and death: 1906.1.10-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background: Graduated from University of Illinois, received “B.S.” Degree in
Civil Engineering, 1928
Graduated from Stanford University, received the advanced professional degree “C.E.”, 1930
Member of American Society of Civil Engineers (M. Am. Soc. C.E.)
Authorized Civil Engineer, Chinese National Government, received Engineer No. 68
Certificate from Ministry of Economics 1944
Professional experience:
1931.1-1931.8, Structural Engineer, P.W.D., Canton City
1931.9-1936.8 Harbor Engineer, Kwang Tung River Conservancy Commission
1936.9-1941.8 Chief of Designing Department, Kwang Tung Provincial Conservancy Bureau
1936.8-1937.7 Professor, Lingnan University, teaching reinforce concrete and structural
design
1937.9-1938.6 Chief Planning Engineer, Whampoa Port Development Administration

347
 1940.8-1942.8 Head of Shui-Hing Engineering Projects, Kwang Tung Provincial Food
Administration
1943.7-1944.4 Senior Supervision Engineer, Ministry of Audits
1944.4-1945.9 Senior Hydraulic Engineer, National Conservancy Commission
1945.10-1947.8 Engineer in Chief, Pearl River Conservancy Bureau
1947.9-1948.9 Deputy Director, Pearl River Conservancy Bureau
1948.9-1949.8 Technical Expert, Ministry of Water Conservancy, Ministry of Economics
1949.8-1950.7 Professor, Lingying College and Canton College, Teaching Mathematics,
Physics, Theory of Reinforced Concrete, Analytic Mechanics, Plane Surveying Etc.
1950.4-1953 Civil Engineer, Hong Kong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.
1954-61 Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 641 of 1953 (P.S. Local Resident vouching:
Kadoorie)
Address: 577 Sheung Yuen Ling, Diamond Hill, Kowloon (1953)
Principal works:
——Designing of buildings and bridges (@P.W.D., Canton)
——Planning of Whampoa Port and designing of harbor structures (@Conservancy Commission)
——In charge of designing for all flood control & irrigation projects and hydraulic structure
(@Conservancy Bureau)
——In charge and responsible for the construction of sluice gates, dykes, and the dredging of left
branch of west river(@Whampoa Port Development)
——In charge and responsible for the design & construction of grain silos and grain elevators
(@Food Administration)
——In charge of supervision of public constructions such as buildings, factories, and fortresses
(@Ministry of Audits)
——Stationed in Kwang Tung & Kwang Si Provinces in charge of constructions of hydraulic
projects (@National Conservancy Commission)
——In charge and responsible for the design and construction of all engineering works done by
the Bureau in the Pearl River area including dams, gates, dykes, irrigation projects, harbors and
dredging of elliot passage (@Pearl River Conservancy Bureau)
——In charge and responsible for the execution of all engineering project (@Pearl River
Conservancy Bureau)
——Stationed in Kwang Tung Province supervising the local government in the execution of
flood control & irrigation projects (@Ministry of Water Conservancy, Ministry of Economics)
Publications:
——“黄埔港埠工程”，中国工程师学会编《三十年来之中国工程》，中央印刷厂重庆厂
印，1945-1946

42. LING Wei-li, William (林威理)

Date of birth and death: 1914.8.11-?
Nationality：Chinese
Educational background: St. John’s Middle School, 1927-1930
Received personal tuition in Architecture from Mr. Eric Cumine, 1930.12-1934.6
Professional experience:
In Shanghai:
1934.10-1936.12 worked in Cumine & Co. as Architectural Assistant
1937.1-1937.8 worked in Palmer & Turner
1937.11-1940.2 worked in Cumine & Co. as Architectural Assistant
In Hong Kong

348
 1949.2- Chief Assistant to Mr. Eric Cumine
1955-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 348 of 1955 (P.S. Local Resident vouching:
Cumime)
1963- Disciplinary Boards (HK Gov.)
1966- Partner of Eric Cumine Associates
Address: c/o 14 Embassy Court, No. 9 Hoi-Ping Road, Hong Kong (1954)
Principal works:
——Embassy Court
——Grayburn Wing (Matilda Hospital)
——New Tsan Yuk Maternity Hospital
——Vicarage of St. Mary’s Church
——Tower Court
——North Point Housing Scheme for Housing Authority
Principal works:
——Matilda and War Memorial Hospital (1952) (The Builder, vol.9, no.4) (with Kwok Tun-Li,
Stanley (郭敦礼)
——North Point Housing Scheme (11-2-17) (The Builder, vol.11, no.2) (assisted Cumine)
——New Church in KL. Has Unusual Design (1961) (The Builder, vol.16, no.2,5) (with Cumine
and Teoh, Ho-loke, Michael（张和乐）)
——Tallest Building in Hong Kong Planned, Fu Center (1965) (The Builder, vol.1965, no.2)
(with Cumine)

43. LUKE Him-sau（陆谦受, 又名：陆增寿， Luk Tsang Shau）

Date of birth and death: 1904.7.29-1991.1.23
Native place: 广东新会（生于香港，地址：1A Wongneichung Village, Happy Valley, Hong
Kong, 黄泥涌村）
Educational background:
Wanchai Govt. School, Queen’s Rd., East, Hong Kong, 1915-1919
St. Joseph’s College，Kennedy Road, Hong Kong, 1919-1922
Studied in the Architectural Association School of Architecture London, and awarded the
A.A. Diploma, 1927-1930.7
Elected Associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 1930.11
Professional experience:
1923-1927 Articled to Messrs. Denison, Ram & Gibbs Architects, Civil Engineer &
Surveyors Hong Kong
1930 Tour of banks on Europe and the US by the Bank of China
1930 Chief Architect, Bank of China Head Office Building Department, Shanghai, China
1931.1- 经赵深、李锦沛介绍入中国建筑师学会，会员、会计，1935 年当选副会长
1931.11-实业部登记
1932 上海工务局技师开业登记（建筑），75
中国建筑师学会理事
1934 杭州市政府执业登记，33
南京市工务社会局技师执业登记
1935.6 应邀参加南京国立中央博物院设计竞赛
1936 汉口市政府土木建筑技师执业登记

349
 1937- Retreat to Chungking in Would War II, Chief Architect, Bank of China Building
Departmet
1941 Technical Consultant, Air Raid Shelters Construction Committee, Chungking, China
1942 Member of the Society for Research on Chinese Architecture
1943 Research Member, Air Raid Precaution Research Council, Chungking, China
1944 Committee Member, Chinese Institute of Engineers Materials Testing Committee,
Chungking, China
Architectural Consultant, the Bridge Construction Co. of China, Chungking, China
1938 重庆市政府执业登记
重庆市工务局建筑技师登记，3
中国建筑师学会重庆分会会员
1940 内政部第三次全国内政会议专家会员
1942 中华民国红十字会特别会员
1945 内政部营建技术标准审查委员会委员
Member of the Chungking City Planning Board, Chungking, China
1945- Return to Shanghai, Chief Architect, Bank of China Building Department
1945 Architectural Consultant, Kincheng Bank Head Office, Shanghai, China
Board Member, Shanghai City Planning Board, in charge of the Planning Section and the the
Designing Department
1945.10-与陈占祥、黄作燊、王大闳、郑观宣合办（上海）五联建筑师事务所（甲等开
业证）
1947-1948 Private Practice in Shanghai
1947 Member, the American Society of Planning Officials
Member of the Town & Country Planning Council, Ministry of Interior, China
Head of the Greater Shanghai Master Plan Department, Shanghai, China
中华营建研究会编辑委员会名誉编辑
1946.5.21- 国营招商局建筑顾问
仁社会长 （1947）
上海市建筑技师公会会员
中国建筑师学会理事长（1946.10.5，上海；1948.7，南京）
Professor of Architecture, St. John University Shanghai
1948.12 Relocated to Hong Kong
1948-1968 Private Practice in Hong Kong（H. S. Luke & Associates）(firm members: 郑观
宣、陆承忠（Luke, Sing Chung）、M.N. Choy 等)
1949.1 台湾建筑师甲等开业证，设立“五联建筑师”，甲等 028 号
1932-33, 49-80-Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 344 of 1932 (P.S. Local Resident
vouching: Mr. Kenneth Cheang of General Investment Co. Ltd)
1950 Returned to Shanghai
1950 中国建筑师学会登记会员
1950 Back to Hong Kong
1956 Foundation Member, Hong Kong Society of Architects, 21
Business Address: Pedder Bldg., Hong Kong, 1948-1952
306, Bank of East Asia Building, Des Voeux Road Central, 1952-1967
1969-1973 New York
1973 Back to Hong Kong from the US
1991 Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
@1930-1948: Works in China
Town Planning:

350
——Air Raid Shelters Planning work, Chungking, 1941-1945
——The 25-year Redevelopment Plan for the City of Greater Shanghai, 1945-1948
Architectural works:
——Bank of China Head Office Building, Shanghai, 1935
——Bank of China Hongkew Office Building, Shanghai, 1933
——Bank of China Yates Road Office Building, Shanghai, 1934
——Bank of China Staff Quarters, Shanghai, 1945
——Shanghai Stock Exchange Building, Shanghai
——Residential work: Dah Hsia Villa, Shanghai
——Tai Char Bou Country Hospital, Shanghai
——Fishery Administration Building and Plants, Shanghai
——Master Plan of New Greater, Shanghai
——Bank of China Building, Nanking
——Bank of China Staff Quarters, Nanking
——Bank of China Godown Building, Nanking
——Residential work: New Housing District, Nanking
——Bank of China Building, Tsingtao
——Bank of China Staff Quarters, Tsingtao
——Bank of China Building, Tsinan
——Tsinan Cotton Press Building, Tsinan
——Communication Building, Nanchang
——The Chu-Chow Arsenal, Honan
——Bank of China Building, Chungking, 1937
——Bank of China Staff Quarters, Chungking, 1937
——Kincheng Bank Building, Chungking, 1943
——Postal Savings Bank Building, Chungking, 1941
——Residential work: Red Cliff Villa, Chungking, 1942
——Air Raid Shelter work, Chungking
——Arsenal No. 21, Chungking
——Chungking Steel works, Chungking, 1940
——Bank of China Building, Kweiyang, 1936
——Bank of China Building, Amoy, 1930
——Bank of China Building, Swatow, 1931
——Bank of China Building, Yingko, 1933
——Ginby Villa, Kunming
@1948-1968 Works in Hong Kong
——So UK Housing Estate (The Builder, vol.13, no.1; vol.15, no.4)
——Shaukiwan Government School
——Maryknoll Sisters Secondary School, Kowloon
——Maryknoll Sisters Welfare Center
——Maryknoll Hospital
——Wah Yan College Chapel, Kowloon (The Builder, vol.15, no.2; vol.19, no.3)
——New Chapel for the Regional Seminary for South China
——Repulse Bay Towers (The Builder, vol.18, no.1; vol.19, no.3; vol.1965; no.10)
——Repulse Bay Mansions (Block C.)

351
——Reveira Apartments, Repulse Bay
——Ritz Apartments
——Rockymount Apartments
——Cimbria Court Apartments
——May May Co. Department Store Buidling
——Airport Police Station
——Residence for Hon. Y.K. Kan (Po Shan Road)
——Residence for Hon. F.S. Li
——Residence for Dr. P.P. Chiu (Repulse Bay)
——Residence for Mr. P.W. Chiu (Repulse Bay)
——Residence for Dr. Frank Kung
——Residence for Dr. S.L. Lee
——Residence for Mr. D. Von Hansemann
——Residence for Mr. S.K. Yuen
——New Residence in R.B.L. 182, Repulse Bay
——New Residence in R.B.L. 713, Stanley
——New Apartment Houses in I.L. 6994, North Point
——New Apartment Houses in I.L. 29 & I.L. 457, Jardine Crescent
——New Apartment Houses in Q.B.M.L. 4, King’s Road
——St. John’s Ambulance Brigade New Head Qaurters, Garden Road
——New Ritz Community Centre Project
Publications:
——“华商证券交易所新屋概况”，《时事新报》，1933.1.25
——“我们的主张”（与吴景奇 合撰），《中国建筑》26 期，1936.7
——“未来的建筑师”，《内政专刊-公共工程专刊》1 集，1945.10
——“致方拥信”，杨永生编《建筑百家书信集》，（北京）中国建筑工业出版社，2000
P.S. The author appreciates the Luke family, Mr. Luk Shing Chark (mid-son) and Ms. Luk Men-
Chong (granddaughter), for contributing the data on LUKE’s career and Hong Kong practices.
The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006) and (Wang, 2007).

44. MOK York-chan（莫若灿）

Date of birth and death: 1906-?
Native place: Shanghai
Educational background: Hong Kong University with degree of B.Sc. in Civil Engineering,
1928
Professional experience:
1935-1959 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 941 of 1934
National Bank Building, Des Voeux Rd. Central (1939)
1948 广州市乙等建筑师
Principal works:
——New Kowloon Apartment (1939) (The Builder, vol.3, no.6)(Perspective drawing by W.S.
Lui, Esq.)
——A Survey of New Constructions on the Island, a Block of European Flats(1939) (The Builder,
vol.4, no.5)
——Further Developments on the New King’s Road, Two European Houses and a Chinese
School, the To Ching College 导正中学 (1940) (The Builder, vol.5, no.4)

352
——B.O.A.C. Quarters, Stewart Terrace (1948) (The Builder, vol.7, no.2)
——Ho Tung Hall, Women’s Hostel for the Hong Kong University (1949) (The Builder, vol.7,
no.3; vol.9, no.1)

45. OUYANG Chao, Leslie（欧阳昭）

Native place: Born in Shanghai
Educational background:
B.Sc. (Arch.), St. John’s University
A.M.I.Struct.E., A.M.S.E.,
Professional experience:
1949-1957 : Architect & Structural Engineer in the office of Eric Cumine & Associates
1957-1958 : Senior Design Engineer in the office of Sir Frederick Snow & Partners,
Consulting Engineers, London
1958-1963 : Joined Wong Ng & Associates
1958-1980- Registered as Authorized Architect in Hong Kong, G. N.1319 of 1958
1959-Member of Hong Kong Society of Architects, No. 117, 1970- President of the Hong
Kong Institute of Architects
1967 Represented HKSA on the BOO Liaison Group, to produce a set of structural
regulations for enactment under the Building Ordinance
1972 Chairman of the Institution of Structural Engineers (Hong Kong Section)
1964-1972 : Founding Partner of Wong Ng Ouyang & Associates
1972-1983 : Founding Partner of Wong & Ouyang & Associates
1983-2005 Director of Wong & Ouyang (HK) Ltd.
Part-time lecturer in Hong Kong University on Structural Design, Professional Practice and
Management
Other Professional Registration / Membership:
Fellow of the UK Association of Consulting Engineers
Fellow of the Institute of Arbitrators
Fellow of the Institution of Structural Engineers,1972- Chairman of the Institution of
Structural Engineers, HK Branch
1972-1982 Member of Appeals Tribunal
Member of Disciplinary Board for Architects, Engineers and Building Contractors
Representing the Hong Kong Institute of Architects and the Hong Kong Institution of
Engineers on
i) Working Party for preparation of Structural Regulations for HK
ii) Liaison Group with Public Works Department
iii) Liaison Group with Fire Services Department
iv) Working Party for preparation of Fire Code
Principal works:
——Residence in Stanley, 80 Chung Hom Kok Road, Hong Kong (1966)
——China Building, 29A-G Queen’s Road Central, Hong Kong (1975)
——Admiralty Centre, Harcourt Road, Hong Kong (1980)
——Shangri-La Hotel, Salisbury Road, Kowloon (1980)
——Kwai Chung Godown Ltd., Kwai Chung, New Territories (1981)
——Kowloon Hotel, Tsim Sha Tsui (1985)
——Times Square, Wanchai, Hong Kong
——Pacific Place, Queensway, Hong Kong

353
——Hang Seng Bank New headquarters Building, Des Voeux Road, Hong Kong
——Whampoa Garden, Hunghom, Kowloon
——China-Hong Kong City, Canton Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong
——Shatin City One, Shatin, Hong Kong
——Wheelock House, Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong
——Citicorp Centre, Whitfield Road, Hong Kong
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Qian, Wang, et al., c2004)

46. O’YOUNG, James (欧阳泽生)

Date of birth and death: 1911.2.7-?
Nationality: Australian
Educational background:
Neutral Bay Technical School, Sydney Aus., building construction, 1925-1930
Henry Lester Institute, Shangahi, 1932-1933
Professional experience:
1933-1937 Messrs Palmer & Turner, Shanghai, architectural draughtsman
1937-1941 Messrs Palmer & Turner, Rangoon, senior architectural assistant (authorized
architect)
1945-1946 U.S. Army Engineer Section, Kuming & Shanghai
1947-1952 Messrs Palmer & Turner, Hong Kong, senior architectural assistant
1952-66 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 541 of 1952 (P.S. Local Resident vouching: G.L.
Wilson)
Address: c/o Messrs Palmer & Turner, Hongkong Shanghai Bank Building, H.K.(1952)
Principal works:
@ P&T, Rangoon
——Reserve Bank of India (4-storey bank building)
——Chartered Bank Building (3-storey bank and offices)
——National Insurance Building (6-storey bank and offices)
——3 European houses for Port Commissioners of Rangoon
@ P&T, Hongkong
——Cameron House (7-storey flats at RBL 68&67)
——14-16 Pedder St. (10-storey office building)
——2 European houses at Kun Tong (2-storey Residences)
——Bank of China Building

47. PANG Dick-noe（彭涤奴）

Date of birth and death: 1913.12.8-?
Native place: 广东四会 (British Subject of Chinese Parentage)
Educational background:
Studied in National Central University, Nanking, China, and graduated with a B.S. degree
from the Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, 1933.4-1937.7
Studied in the University of Illinois, Graduated with a M.S. Degree from the Department of
Architecture, 1948.1-1949.3
Professional experience:
1938.8-1941.12 Employed as an Architectural Designer in Davies, Brooke & Gran Architects,
Hong Kong

354
 1942.9-1945.7 As an Architect in the Allied Architects’ Kunming Office, Kunming, China
1946.2 Admitted as an Authorized Architect in China
广州市政府工务局技佐
1944.6 考试院登记，建检 21
自营（广州）彭涤奴建筑师事务所，1946.2 广州市工务局建筑技师申请领证开业，甲
1020（firm members: 赵明轩，李衍铨，莫棠）
（广州）范志恒 建筑师事务所从业建筑师
1946.7-1947.12 As Chief Assistant in Palmer & Turner Architects, Hong Kong
1948.1-1949.3 Given leave (from P & T ) to study
1949.4 Return to Palmer & Turner Architects
1950 年中国建筑师学会登记会员
1950-69 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 229 of 1954 (P.S. Local Resident vouching: G.L.
Wilson)
1956 HKSA Member，43
1965-the first Silver Medal Award by the HKSA (Choi Hung Housing, P&T, with Ian
Campbell)
Addresses: c/o Messrs Palmer & Turner, Hongkong Shanghai Bank Building, H.K.(1949)
c/o Messrs. Palmer & Turner, Hongkong & Shanghai Bank Building, 1 Queen’s
Road Central (1959,1966)
Principal works:
——1 Church (1956 approved), Cameron Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 4)
——Choi Hong Estate Will House 43,000 in 7,585 Flats (The Builder, vol.16, no.1)
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

48. POON Siu Chuen (潘绍铨)

Date of birth and death: 1921.4.2-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background:
Graduated form Hsen Chin Senior Middle School, 1936.7
1936 入广东省立勷勤大学
Graduated from Dr. Sun Yat Sen University, and got the degree of B.Sc. in Architectural
Engineering, 1940.7
Approved by Chinese Government as an Authorized Architect in 1942.12
Professional experience:
1940.3-1941.9 As a technician of High Court of Yunnan
1941.9-1942.7 As a technician in Ministry of Food
1942.7-1943.8 As an assistant engineer in Granary Engineer Office, Ministry of Food
1943.7-1946.7 As a second engineer, Ministry of Food
1946.7-1949.8 and as a full technician in the Farm Revenue & Food Supply Administration
(Kiansi), Ministry of Food
1943.2-1949 As an Authorized Architect at Chungking & Kiansi
（重庆）宜雅建筑师事务所，1943 重庆市工务局技（副师）申请开业登记，328
1949-1953 In cooperation with Mr. S.C.Yue, Authorized Architect in Hong Kong
Worked with KC&Y in Hong Kong
1952.6 Awarded the third Prize of the South China Athletic Association Stadium Competition
in Hong Kong
1954-1969 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 891 of 1954
Address: 1-D, Peak Road, Cheung Chau, N.T. (1953)

355
 1204, Man Yee Building
Principal works:
——Design of Model Jail of Yunnan & District Court Office Building in Kunming (@Yunnan)
The typical granary silo design for provinces of China. Supervision of granary works in Kiansi
Province (@Ministry of Food)
——Design for many private residential buildings in Chunking; The Three People Principle
Youth Memorial; Redesigned the Central Training Regimental Camp in Lo Sau (Kiansi) in May
1945; Many residences in Nanchang (Kiansi) (@A.A. in China)
——Designed 2 school buildings and several residences in Cheung Chau, N.T. (@ with S.C.Yue)
——Tung Kun School (Ref. NT 52/585/52)
——Po On School (Ref. ED/IB ® 119)
——Residence on I.L. 860 (Ref. NT34/131/52)
——Residence on I.L. 865 (Ref. NT36/131/52)
——Residence on I.L. 899 (submitted)
——Plan of South China Athletic Association Stadium

49. SETO Yu (司徒穥)

Date of birth and death: 1911.9.17-?
Native place: 广东开平
Educational background:
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Washington State College, U.S.A., 1934.6
Master of Science in Civil Engineering, Specialized in Structural Engineering, University of
Michigan, U.S.A., 1936.2
伊利诺大学（Ill. U）研究
Professional experience:
（美）华盛顿州公路局（Washington State Highway Dept.）工程员
1936-1939 Instructor and Professor of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat Sen University and Kao
Min University
1939-1940 Designing Engineer for bridges, buildings and roads, Yunnan Burma Highway
1940-1941 Designing Engineer for bridges, buildings, and railway location, Yunnan
Szechuan Railway
1941-1943 Designing Engineer for bridges, buildings, and railway location, Yunnan Burma
Railway
1943 Field Engineer on runway, taxiway, service roads and buildings, U.S.A. Airfield in
Yunnan
1944-1946 Field Engineer and Maintenance Engineer in charge of building work and service
roads, U.S.A. B-29 Airfield in Szechuan
1946-1948 Senior Engineer and Head of Department of Surveying and Drafting, Third
Regional Office, Chinese National Highway
Authorized Architect, Chinese National Government
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
Member, Chinese National Society of Engineers, Society of Architects of Canton
1950-1980- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 869 of 1949
Address: 3 Victory Ave., Kowloon, Hong Kong (1949)
Principal works:
——Astor Hotel (1957) (The Builder, vol.12, no.6; vol.13, no.6)
——Wing Wah Building (1957) (The Builder, vol.13, no.1)

356
——Large Kowloon Development (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.1)

50. SIU Ho Ming (萧浩明)

Date of birth and death: 1896-1950s
Native place: Guangdong Province
Educational background: Hong Kong University with degree of B.Sc. in Civil Engineering,
1918
Professional experience:
1925-1951 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 279 of 1924
Exchange Building, Des Voeux Rd. Central (1939)
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
1950s Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——Compact House on a Restricted Area (1940) (The Builder, vol.5, no.4)
——Po Shan Road Residence (1941) (The Builder, vol.6, no.1)
——Housing Development Scheme (1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.7)

51. SU Gin-Djih（徐敬直）
Date of birth and death: 1906.10.6-？
Native place: Zhong Shan, Guangdong Province（Born in Shanghai）
Educational background:
（私立）沪江大学（科学），1924-1926
1927 转入（美）密西根大学（U. of Michigan）建筑系毕业，学士（B.S.A），
1926-1929，硕士，1931
（美）匡溪艺术学院建筑系 Holder of Scholarship in Architecture: George G. Booth
Scholarship in Architecture.
Professional experience:
在美实习期间曾随著名建筑大师 Eliel Saarinen 工作，参与设计 Kingswood School，
Cranbrook，同时受华北北宁路函托设计该路俱乐部
1932-回国入范文照 建筑师事务所
实业部登记，455
1932 上海工务局技师开业登记（建筑），96
1932.4-经范文照、赵深 介绍加入中国建筑师学会
1933.3-与李惠伯、杨润钧 合办（上海、重庆、南京）兴业建筑师事务所 甲等开业
证，任总经理兼建筑师
1933.11-赴日本东京神户等处观光（《申报》1933.11.7）
上海市建筑技师公会会员
1935.6 应邀参加南京国立中央博物院设计竞赛，获得首奖（与李惠伯 合作）
1935- 中国营造学社社员
重庆市工务局建筑技师登记，250
中国建筑师学会重庆分会会员
1945 中华营建研究会编辑委员会名誉编辑
中国建筑师学会理事（1948.7）
1948-1971 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 980 of 1948
1950 中国建筑师学会登记会员

357
 Founder of the Hsin Yieh Arcitects & Associates in Hong Kong
1956 First President and Foundation Member of the HKSA, 26
1956-1957 香港抚轮社主席
Hon. Fellow of A.I.A（1968）
Principal works:
——南京中央农业实验所（1933）
——南京陵园陈先生住宅
——上海实业部鱼市场（1934）
——南京国立中央博物院设计竞赛获得首奖（与李惠伯合作）（1935.6）
——云南保山县富滇新银行（1938）
——昆明中国银行昆明分行职员宿舍（1938, 1944）
——Pao Hsing Cotton Mill (1948) (The Builder, vol.8, no.5) (with WU Chi-Koei 吴继轨)
——New Church for the Seventh Day Adventists (1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.7) (with WU
Chi-Koei 吴继轨)
——New Warehouse in West Point, HK (1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.7)
——Primary School in Kowloon, the new C.M.S. St. Thomas’ School (1953) (The Builder,
vol.10, no.1)
——National Cash Register Building, Nacareco House (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.2,6)
——Ritz Cinema (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.3) (with WU Chi-Koei 吴继轨)
——New Theological College(1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.4,6)
——Boy Scouts Headquarters (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.4,6)
——Salvation Army Thomson Memorial Youth Hostel (1954) (The Builder, vol.10, no.5)
——Floribunda Apartments, KL.(1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.2)
——Office Building on Queen’s Rd, Central (1955-57) (The Builder, vol.11, no.5; vol.12, no.5)
——Wong On Life Assurance/ The Wing On Life Building (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.5;
vol.12, no.2)
——Training Center for C.A.S.(1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.6)
——New Apartments Project on Robinson Rd. (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.1,2; vol.13, no.4)
——Bus Depot & Office Building (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.1)
——Bus Company’s Staff Quarters(1955－1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.1)
——New Park Apartments (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.3)
——The New Asia College (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no3.)
——Maryknoll Fathers’ School (1957) (The Builder, vol.12, no.5)
——Peace Mansions, Apartment Block, Tai Hang Rd. (1959) (The Builder, vol.13, no.1; vol.14,
no.3) (with CHEANG Koon-hing, Arthur（郑观宣）)
——New Ritz Hotel (1958) (The Builder, vol.13, no.4)
——New Factory for Camel Paints (1958) (The Builder, vol.13, no.6)
——New Ambassador Hotel (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.1; vol.15, no.5)
——Another Big New Factory in Kun Tong Industrial Area (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.2)
——Youth Groups’ New Headquarters (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.2)
——Peace Mansions, Apartment Block, Tai Hang Rd. (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.3) (with
Auther Cheang)
——Hong Kong’s Kwong On Bank in New Headquarters (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.5)
——National Lacquer & Paint Products Co., Ltd. (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.5)
——Breezy Court (1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.1)
——Merlin Hotel (1961) (The Builder, vol.16, no.4; vol.17, no.1)

358
——Macpherson Playground (1952) (The Builder, vol.9, no.4; vol.11, no.3)
——Hung Hom Building Can Be Car Park of Factory (1964) (The Builder, vol.18, no.4)
——New Wing On Building, Kowloon (1964) (The Builder, vol.18, no.5,6; vol.19, no.1)
——Police Clubhouse (1967) (The Builder, vol.1967, no.8) (by Hsin Yieh Architects)
——Post-tensioned Polyclinic is Column-free (1970) (The Builder, vol.1970, no.11) (by Hsin-
Yieh, under William WT Hsu)
——Triple-Tower Tregunter Residential Development (Elizabeth House) (1978) (The Builder,
vol.1978, no.10) (by Hsin Yieh)
——C.M.S. St. Thomas’ School (1953 completed, 1960 developed), Namchang Street,
Shamshuipo (The Builder, vol. 10, no. 1) (with WU Chi-Koei 吴继轨)
——4-storey Hang Seng Bank Building (1953), Nos.163 & 165 Queen’s Road Central; Ritz
Cinema (1951-1953), Nathan Road, Shan Tung Street, Portland Road and Nelson Street (with
WU Chi-Koei 吴继轨) (The Builder, vol. 10, no. 3)
——Chong Chi College (Extension to St. Paul’s College) (1953), Lower Albert Road, Upper
Albert Road and Glenealy; Boy Scouts Headquarters (1953), Cox’s Road, Kowloon (The Builder,
vol. 10, no. 4, 6)
——Floribunda Apartments, Grampian Road and Nga Tsin Wai Road; 1 European Type House,
N. of Boundary Street; 1 Workshop, Castle Peak Road; Factory, Kun Tong Road; 1 Clinic, Nam
Chang Street; Apartment Building, Macdonnell Road; Tanner Road (1954 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 11, no. 2)
——Training Centre for Civil Aid Services (1954 approved), Argyle Road (The Builder, vol. 11,
no.2, 6)
——1 Church (1954 approved), Mission Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2, 4, vol. 13, no. 6)
——European Type Houses, Waterloo Street (2 Blocks); Peak Road; Ming Yuen Western Street;
Chinese Type Houses, Queen’s Road West; Un Chau Street (8 Blocks); Boundary Street; 1
Apartment Building, Mody Road; 1 Office, Queen’s Road Central; 1 School, Farm Road (1955
approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 4)
——Commercial House, 35 Queen’s Road (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5, vol. 12, no. 5)
——1 European Type House, Stanley Beach Road; 1 Chapel, Diamond Hill (1955 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 11, no. 5)
——1 Apartment Building, Leighton Road; A.F.S. Training Center, North Point (1956 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6)
——Bus Company’s Staff Quarters (1955), Mable Road; Bus Depot & Office Building, King's
Road; 1 Hotel, Hart Avenue; European Type Houses, Oxford Road; Nathan Road (6 Blocks);
Coombe Road (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 1)
——New Asia College, Farm Road, Kowloon (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 1, 3)
——1 Apartment Building (1956 approved), Peak Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 2, 3)
——New Peak Apartments, Peak Road and Robbinson Road; Apartment Buildings, Hart Avenue;
King’s Road (1956 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 3)
——European Type Houses (1956-57 approved), Taipo Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 3, 5)
——Apartment Buildings, Soares Avenue; Quarry Bay (1956 approved), (The Builder, vol. 12,
no. 4)
——Maryknoll Fathers’ School, Tai Hang Tung Road; Apartment Buildings, Gordon Road;
Prince Edward Road; Factories, Island Road; Ma Tau Kok Road; 1 School, Kwong Lee Street
(1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 5)
——8 Chinese Type House, Tung Chau Street; 1 Apartment, Austin Avenue; 1 Factory, Lok
Shan Road; 1 Hotel, Nathan Road (1957 approved) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 6)
——Apartments (1957 approved), Park Road (2#) (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 6, vol. 13, no. 5)
——Apartments (1957 approved), Nathan Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 6, vol. 13, no. 6)

359
——4 European Type House (1957 approved), New Road off Ma Tau Chung Road (The Builder,
vol. 13, no. 1, 5)
——Peace Mansions (1956), Broadwood Road and Tai Hang Road (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 1,
vol. 14, no. 3)
——Apartments, Electric Road; La Salle Road; European Type Houses, Breezy Path; 23-25
Ashley Street (2 Blocks); Factories, Hung To Road; Shing Yip Street; Shaukiwan Road; Marble
Road; 1 Office Building, Hoi Yuen Road (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 5)
——Factory (1958 approved), Hoi Yuen Street (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 5, 6, vol. 14, no. 1)
——New Factory for Camel Paints, Hing Yip Street and Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong (by Hsin-
Yieh Architects) ; Chinese Type Apartments, Connaught Road West (Whitty Street and Des
Voeux Road); 1 School, Monmouth Path; 1 Tenement Building, 63-67 Tong Mi Road & 1 Larch
Street; 1 Apartment, Carnarvon Road & Humphrey’s Avenue; 1 Funeral Parlour, Maple Street;
European Type Houses, North View Street (2 Blocks); Deep Water Bay Road (1958 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 13, no. 6)
——1 Church (1958 approved), San Shi Street (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 6, vol. 14, no. 1)
——School (1958-59 approved), Wylie Road (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 6, vol. 14, no. 3)
——New Ambassador Hotel (1957), Nathan Road and Middle Road; 1 Bathing Hut, South Bay
Beach; 1 Hotel, Hankow Road & Middle Road; European Type Houses, 2 & 3 Broadwood Road;
1 Welfare Center, Wood Road; 1 Apartment Building-48 Flats with garages, 42-44 Village Road;
1 Factory, Hing Yip Street; 1 School, Inverness Road (1958 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no.
1)
——Factory Building for Nanyang Cotton Mill Ltd., Kwun Tong; 1 Iron Smith Room, Shau Kei
Wan; 1 Apartment, Chatham Road & Observatory Road; 1 Factory, Wing Kwong Street(1959
approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 2)
——1 Factory, Castle Peak Road; European Type Houses, Mount Davis Road (4 Blocks); 53
Shouson Hill Road (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 3)
——1 Godown, Kun Tong Road; Addition & Extension to School, Tin Kwong Road & Hop Yat
Road (1959 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 4)
——Kwong On Bank, Queen's Road; 1 Apartment Building (1959 approved), 30 & 32 Wyndham
Street (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 5)
——1 Composite Building, Nathan Road; 1 Factory, Kun Tong Road; 1 European Type House,
Conduit Road; Associate Building, Ma Tau Chung Road (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 14,
no. 6)
——European Type Flats, 30 Caine Road; Carnarvon Road; 1 Composite Building, Kimberley
Road; Extension to Building, 146 Waterloo Road (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 2)
——1 Factory (1960 approved), Bailey Street (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 3)
——Workshop, Shau Kei Wan; School, Yee On Street (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no.
4)
——1 Factory, Cheung Sha Wan Road; 1 Composite Building, J/O Wharf Road & Tong Shui
Road (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 5)
——Factories, J/O Castle Peak Road & Wing Hong Street (7-storey); Castle Peak Road (6-
storey); 1-storey Dangerous Goods Godown, Tsuen Wan (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15,
no. 6)
——8-Storey Factory Building, San Po King; 5-Storey Cinema Building, Yen Chau Street; 1-
Storey European Type House, Clear Water Bay Road; Dangerous Goods Store, Castle Peak Road;
3-Storey Extension to Factory Building of Pao Hsing Cotton Mill, Kwai Chung (1961 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 16, no. 1)
——Factories, Hoi Yeun Road (5-storey); Texaco Road (3-storey) (1961 approved) (The Builder,
vol. 16, no. 2)
——Factories Building, Tsuen Wan (6-storey); Ma Tau Wei Road (11-storey); European Type
Residences, 56 Plantation Road (3-storey); J/O San Wai Street & Gillies Avenue (5-storey); 1

360
Bridge, Tsuen Wan; 10-storey Tenement Building, 41-43 Nan Chang Street; 17-storey Apartment
Building, 90-96 Nathan Road; 6-storey School Building, Tin Kwong Road (1961 approved) (The
Builder, vol. 16, no. 3)
——3-storey Workers’ Quarter & Dormitory (1961-62 approved), Shan Tseng (The Builder, vol.
16, no. 3, vol. 17, no. 3)
——Composite Buildings, Gloucester Road, O’Brien Road and Jaffe Road; Cinema, Nam On
Lane, Shaukiwan (15-Storey); 5-9 Fleming Road & Jaffe Road (15-storey); Tenement Buildings,
108-112 Yu Chau Street (10-storey); 1-2 Wood Road (8-storey); 2-storey European Type House,
Oxford Road; 3-storey Godown, Tsuen Wan;; 12-storey Apartment Building, Ma Tau Chung
Road; 4-storey Seminary Building, 1 Homantin Hill Road (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol. 16,
no. 4)
——1-Storey School Building (1961), Tai O, Lantao Island (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 5)
——9-storey Tenement Building, 11-21 Pak Hoi Street; 10-storey Composite Building, 18-32
Hankow Road; 3-storey Funeral Parlour, J/O Bedford Road & Tai Kok Tsui Road (1962
approved) (The Builder, vol. 16, no. 6)
——Merlin Hotel, Hankow Road and Middle Road; 8-storey Office Building, 7-13 Wellington
Street; 3-storey Beach House, Shek O; 18-storey Apartment Building, Nathan Road; 15-storey
Tenement Building, Lok Shan Road (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 1)
——8-storey Office Building, Wyndham Street; 12-storey Factory Building & Garage, Ma Tau
Wei Road; Sanatorium, Chai Wan Kok, Tsuen Wan; 16-storey Composite Building, King’s Road
& Ngan Kok Street; 12-storey Office & Theater Building, Ma Tau Wei Road; 2-storey European
Type House, Yau Kam Tau, Tsuen Wan (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 2)
——3-storey Factory Building (1962 approved), Tsuen Wan (Texaco Road) (The Builder, vol. 17,
no. 2, 3)
——9-storey Composite Building, 93-101 Wanchai Road; 10-storey European Type Flats, Prince
Edward Road; 5-storey Factory Building, Hung To Road; 1 School Extension, Berwick Street
(1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 3)
——18-Storey Composite Building, 55-59 Nathan Road; 16-storey Apartment Building, 230-238
Nathan Road (1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 4)
——7-Storey European Type Flats, 89-93 Robinson Road; Swimming Pool, Cambridge Road
(1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 5)
——22-storey European Type Flats, King’s Road; 22-storey Office Building, Des Voeux Road
Central & Chiu Lung Street; 2-storey Residence, Shek O; Factories, King’s Road, stage I & II
(11-storey); Tanner Road (7-storey); Tenement Buildings, 31-39 Pitt Street (8-storey); East Point
(11-storey); Composite Buildings, Tung Lo Wan Road (14-storey); Moreton Terrace (24-storey);
8-14 Yee Wo Street & Jardine’s Bazaar (17-storey); (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 6)
——4-Storey School Building, Tsuen Wan; European Type Flats, Kai Yuen Street (8-Storey);
Chatham Road (18-storey) (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 1)
——1-storey Godown (1963 approved), Kun Tong Road (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 1, vol. 19, no.
1)
——2-Storey European Type Flats, Clear Water Bay Road; Office Buildings, 71 Wyndham
Street (8-storey); 50-52 Queen’s Road Central (12-storey); 2 Additional Storeys, San Shi Street,
Aplichau; Castle Peak Road, Tsuen Wan; 15-storey Tenement Building, Prince Edward Road;
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 2)
——14-storey Composite Building, 375-377 King’s Road; 3-storey Factory Extension, Tsuen
Wan (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 3)
——Hung Hom Building, Ma Tau Wai Road and Hok Yuen Street (with K. W. Chueng 郑观宣);
12-storey Factory Building, King’s Road, IL.7737 (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 4)
——24-storey Composite Building, J/O Hennessy Road, Arsenal Street & Lockhart Road; 15
Blocks of 6-storey European Type Flats, Chai Wan Kok, Tsuen Wan; 1 Bungalow, Lantao Island
(1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 5)

361
——3 Godown Buildings, Kwai Chung; 1-storey Factory Building, Kwai Chung; 4 Blocks of 4-
storey Residences, Repulse Bay Road RBL.366; 1 Factory Extension, 436-438 Kwun Tong Road;
5-storey School Building, Ngau Tau Kok, Jordan Valley (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18,
no. 6)
——1 Bathing Shed (1964 approved), Site No. 62 Ting Kau (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 1)
——19-Storey Office Building, 54-56 Connaught Road Central; 13-storey European Type Flats,
32 Kennedy Road; 8-storey Funeral Parlour, J/O King’s Road & Java Road; 1-storey Precipitator
& High Tension Building, Ma Tau Wei Road; 6-storey Godown, Castle Peak Road (1964
approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 2)
——Factory Buildings, Wai Yip Street (12-Storey); Kwun Tong (9-Storey); 9-Storey Tenement
Building, Tung Ming Street (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 3)
——4-storey Factory Building, Kwai Chung; 7-storey Tenement Building, 144 Nga Tsin Wai
Road (1964 approved) (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 4)
——4-storey Cinema (1966 approved), J/O Ash Street & Anchor Street (Far East Architect &
Builder, Jan 1966)
——Extension of Pooi To Girls’ Middle School (1959), N.K.I.L.3737 Inverness Road
——Belilios Public School (1961), 51 King’s Road; Mong Kok Divisional Police Station (1962),
142 Prince Edward Road West (Signed by A. A. K. W. Chueng 郑观宣); Globe Theater, Sek
Kong Camp; St. Anthony’s School, 2 Hospital Road; Fire Services Married Quarters
(Government projects g. d. su a. a.)
——Buildings of The Family Planning Association; Silver Mine Bay Hospital Camp, Pui O
School and Domestic House on Lamma Island (Welfare projects g. d. su a. a.)
Publications:
——《建造南京国立中央博物院工程规则及说明书》（与杨润钧 、李惠伯 合著）
—— Chinese Architecture, Past and Contemporary. Hong Kong, 1964
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

52. SUN Edmund alias Sun Yik Man (孙翼民)

Date of birth and death: 1918.10.30-?
Nationality: British subject by birth (born in Hong Kong, hold of British Passport No. C194215)
Educational background: King’s College, Hong Kong, 1928-1935
Passed with Honors the Hong Kong University School Certificate Examination and awarded
Government Scholarship for four years’ study at the University of Hong Kong, June 1935
Student at the University of Hong Kong took course in Science and Mathematics and
graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Sep.1935-May 1939
Professional experience:
1939.9- 1941.12 (Japanese invasion), Appointed University Trained Master by Education
Department and served in the Junior Technical School, teaching English and Engineering
Drawing to the upper classes in the Day School and Applied Mechanics to the Evening
Classes (Hong Kong Evening Institute)
Mar.-Sep.1945 Engineering Draughtsman in the Engineer Section of Headquarters, Unites
States Forces, China Theater, Chungking, China
1947.8-1954- Architect’s Assistant in the office of Messrs. Way and Hall, Architects &
Surveyors
1955-1980- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), G. N.931 of 1954 (Local Resident
vouching: Mr. G.A.V. Hall)
Address: Way and Hall, Architects & Surveyors, Kayamally Building, 4th Fl., Queen’s Road
Central Hong Kong (1954)
Principal works:

362
@Mar.-Sep.1945 in the Engineer Section of Headquarters, Unites States Forces:
——Survey of existing buildings and the preparation of plans and drawings for the alteration of
existing buildings or the erection of new buildings, for use by U.S. Forces in Chungking, China
@ Aug.1947-1954 in Messrs. Way and Hall, Architects & Surveyors:
——K.I.L.535, Kimberley Road and Nathan Road, New Hotel Miramar Bldg., Gilman Garages
and Miramar Arcade Building (preparing structural and R.C.C. calculations and detail drawings,
general plans, supervising R.C.C. works, drainage and general building works; assisting in the
preparation of working drawings)
——N.K.I.L.3547, Castle Peak Road, Metal Window Factory (do)
——N.K.I.L.2804, Castle Peak Road, Chinese Theatre Building “Apollo Theater” (do)
——Crown Land- Ma Tau Wei Road, Workshop for Camphor Wood Chests (do)
——I.L.6373, No.11 Kotewall Road, European Residence (do)
——I.L. 6418, Nos. 1B & 1C, Bonham Road, European Residence (do)
——I.L.2441, Victoria Road, European Residence “Longsight Villa” (do)
——I.L. 6071, Wong Nei Cheong Gap Road, European Residence (do)
——I.L.4423, 45 Caine Road, European Residence (do)
——K.I.L.1366, No.8 Austin Ave, European Residence (do)
——I.L.2823, No.41 Hennessy Road Chinese Tenement Building (do)
——N.K.I.L.705, No.2 Lincoln Road, European Residence (do)
——K.I.L.3359, Argyle Street, Proposed Church Building. (Preparing structural and R.C.C.
calculations, assisting in architectural design and preparation of general plans)

53. SZETO Wai (司徒惠)

Date of birth and death: 1913.4.10-1991
Native place: Guangdong
Educational background:
St. Paul’s College in Hong Kong
St. John’s University in Shanghai with a degree in engineering
1938-1940 Scholarship to apprentice in UK
B.Sc., A.M.I.C.E., A.M.Am.Soc.C.E, G.I.Mech.E., A.I.S.E.
Professional experience:
1940- Assitant Engineer at Babtie, Shaw and Morton, Civil Engineers, of Glasgow working
on design of water supply and sewage disposal schemes, jetties and piling, reinforced
concrete and soil mecanics investigation)
Assistant Civil Engineer with the Scottish Division of the London, Midland and Scottish
Railway (design of bridges and R.C. railway structures)
during the war in Glasgow as Senior Planning Engineer
1945 returned to Hong Kong
Senior Planning Engineer of the National Hydroelectric Engineering Bureau of the National
Resources Commission, China
Opened an engineering office (Rm.401, Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank Building)
1948-1980- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 832 of 1948
started own practice in Hong Kong: Szeto Wai and Associates (firm members: Alan Fitch
(1963-加入，1967- HKSA President))
1956 HKSA Member，75
1960- the President of HKIA (HKSA)

363
 the firm benefited from a cordial relationship with the Lee Family, thereby receiving a steady
stream of projects in Causeway Bay, noticeably the Sunning Plaza jointly designed by IM Pei
and Partners in New York.
1963-64 Members of the HK Town Planning Board
1963- Disciplinary Boards (HK Gov.)
Address: 510, Edinburgh House, Queen’s Road Central (1959)
1991 Passed away in Hong Kong
Principal works:
——The Wong Kiang (滃江) (1948) (The Builder, vol.7, no.2)
——Chinese Methodist Church School and Welfare Centre (1951) (The Builder, vol.9, no.1,3)
——New Tun Yu School, New Territories (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.4)
——St. Paul’s Boys College (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.4)
——Contractors’ School (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.4; vol.13, no.5)
——Shamshuipo School(1955)(11-4-35) (The Builder, vol.11, no.4)
——Li Po Chun Chamber (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.6; vol.13, no.4; vol.14, no.6)
——Tak Sun Anglo-Chinese School (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.6)
——New Maryknoll Secondary School(1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.1)
——Belcher Gardens Estate (1953-1956) (The Builder, vol.11, no.5; vol.12, no.5)
——So Uk Estate (1957) (The Builder, vol.13, no.1; vol.15, no.4) (master plan by Cumine,
Blocks M, A,B,C,D, by Chau & Lee, Blocks E,F,G,H,I by Szeto, Blocks R,P,Q by Luke, and
Blocks S,T,U by L&O)
——Maryknoll Sisters’ School and Convent (1958) (The Builder, vol.13, no.4)
——New Methodist College (1958) (The Builder, vol.13, no.5)
——St. Mary’s Church Primary School (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.3)
——Big Extensions for Macdonnell Rd. Co-ed. College (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.4)
——Big Offices Block for Queen’s Rd. (1960) (The Builder, vol.14, no.6)
——Cruciform Design for Housing Estate (1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.3)
——Bowen Hill Apartments (1963) (The Builder, vol.17, no.5)
——Two Hong Kong Housing Authority Schemes Provide Homes for 22,986 People (the Wo
Lok Estate 和乐村, the Fuk Loi Estate 福来村) (1963) (The Builder, vol.17, no.2; vol.18, no.1,4,5)
——Sir Robert Black Health Centre (1963) (The Builder, vol.18, no.3)
——Chinese University of Hong Kong (1964) (The Builder, vol.18, no.6; vol.19, no.1; vol.1969,
no.5) (as senior architect for the project, prepared the master planning and civil engineering and
architectural design for the central library, Science lecture hall complex, Institute of Chinese
study, Social Center, etc.)
——Society’s Largest Estate Complete, Ming Wah Estate (1966) (The Builder, vol.1966, no.3)
——Low Cost Housing at Kennedy Town (The Builder, vol.1968, no.4)
——Bank of Canton Building (1968) (The Builder, vol.1968, no.5)
——Two New Broadcasting Centres (1969) (The Builder, vol.1969, no.11)
——HK $26 Million Hospital at Kwun Tong: United Christian Hospital (1970) (The Builder,
vol.1970, no.11)
——the Red Cross Centre and the Statute Square in Central
——Sir Robert Black Post-Graduate Hall, HKU
Publications:
——“Modern-day Role of the Architect”, (The Builder, vol.14, no.5)

364
——“The work of the town planning board”, The law in relation to town planning: report of the
proceedings of a seminar held at the University of Hong Kong on 23rd June 1973, (Hong Kong :
the Branch, 1973)
——“Transport and traffic problems in Hong Kong”, Report of proceedings of 1st International
Road Safety Conference in 1969 (Hong Kong : the Conference Committee, 1969)
——Chinese University of Hong Kong development plan: a preliminary report on the layout and
proposals of the grouping and planning of buildings to meet both the present and planned
ultimate growth of the University （Hong Kong : the University, 1964）
——Report to the Governor-in-Council on the future development of Victoria Barracks area
（Hong Kong : Govt. Printer], 1977）
——Planning proposals for the Victoria Barracks area, June 1977（Hong Kong : Govt. Printer,
1977）
——Recent paintings & drawings（Hong Kong : printed by Goodyear Ptg. Press, 1975）
——Reflections （Hong Kong : the author, 1980-82）

54. WONG Chung Hong, David（黄颂康）

Date of birth: 14th May, 1926-?
Nationality: British subject, born in Hong Kong
Educational background:
1932-1938 Chung Hwa Middle School, Hong Kong
1938-1941 King’s College, Hong Kong
1942-1946 Tsing Hua Academy, Kweiyang, China
1946-1950 Obtained the Degree of B.Arch. at the National Sun Yat Sen University, China
1951-1953 Obtained the Degree of Master of Civic Design at the Dept. of Civic Design,
University of Liverpool, England
Professional experience:
April1954-Oct.1954 Assistant architect to R. T. Lau (刘登), Authorized Architect
Oct.1954-1956- Associate Architect to Professor R. Gordon Brown, M.A., F.R.I.A.S.,
F.R.I.B.A., A.A. Dip.
Oct.1954-1956- Lecture in Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, HKU
? Registered as Authorized Architect in Hong Kong, G. N.?
Principal works:
(April1954-Oct.1954, Assisted to R. T. Lau)
——1 block of 10 flats in K.I.L. 3903 Waterloo Road, Kowloon
——4 European type houses of 16 flats in K.I.L. 3903 Waterloo Road, Kowloon
(Oct.1954-1956-, Assisted to Professor R. Gordon)
——On Wah Yan College, Hong Kong, New Central Government Office, British North Borneo
and various works in course of preparation
Publications:
——“Chinese method and system”, Seminar on Architectural Education (1955 : University of
Hong Kong)

55. WONG Fait-fone（黄培芬，字：建亚）

Date of birth and death: 1909-?
Native place: 广东台山
Educational background:

365
 （菲律宾）马保亚工程大学（Mapua I.T.）建筑系毕业，学士，1934
（英）建筑师学会毕业
Professional experience:
（香港）建新营造公司 建筑及测绘技师（1937）
1940-1980- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 400 of 1939
1942.8- 中山大学建筑工程系副教授（1943）（教授建筑图案设计、建筑计划、施工及
估价、建筑图案论）
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
1948.12 Foundation Members of the Engineering Society of Hong Kong
-1948- Hong Kong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd （senior architect）
1956 Foundation Member and First Council Member of the HKSA; Council Member, 1964F.
Wong & W. Chiu & Associates (1969)
Principal works:
——Kadoorie Avenue Apartments(1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.4)
——Apartments at 16-18 Headland Road (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.5)
——Buckingham Building on Nathan Rd. KL. (1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.2)
——71 Kadoorie Avenue(1956) (The Builder, vol.12, no.2)
——Peninsular Court (1957)(12-6-27) (The Builder, vol.12, no.6)
——New Factory near Shatin, N.T., for Jardine Dyeing & Finishing Co. Ltd. (1958) (The Builder,
vol.13, no.6)
——Tai Hang Road Co-operative Apartment (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no1.)
——Nanyang Cotton Mill Staff Quarters (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.2)
——Bronze Look Distinguishes Central Tower Block, St. George’s Building (1969) (The Builder,
vol.1969, no.7) (with Wong Y.K. structural engineer)
——Box-look Avoided in Flats Design (1972) (The Builder, vol.1971, no.2)
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. LAI Delin for contributing the data in Chinese.

56. WONG Hong-Yuen（黄匡原）

Native place: Born in Canton
Educational background:
Chiao Tung University, B.Sc., 1945
Michigan State University, M.Sc., 1949
Professional experience:
late 1940s- wined first prize in an open architecture competition for the Kwangtung
Provincial Assembly Hall
1950- Came to Hong Kong
1951- 58- PWD, as an Assistant Architecture
1957- Associate Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers
1958-1980- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 1293 of 1958
Principal works:
——The Electrical & Mechanical Workshops, Caroline Hill (1952-54)
——Rank & File Married Quarters
——Officers’ Married Quarters
——Western Police Station (1955)
——Kam Tin Police Station
——New KL. Hospital (Teamwork)

366
——an apartment, Chatham Rd. KL.
——Two residences, Jardine’s Lookout
——Miramar Hotel Extension, KL.
——New flats, Blue Pool Rd. & Sing Woo Rd.
——Kowloon Fire Station (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.1) (HKPWD, with Firth, J.R.)
——Sha Tau Kok Police Station (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.4) (PWD)
——Apartments on Boundary Street (1959) (The Builder, vol.13, no.5; vol.14, no.1,6)
——Estoril Court Estate in Final Stage(1960) (The Builder, vol.13, no.5; vol.14, no.6; vol.16,
no.5)
——Another Big Block of Flats Erected in Boundary Street (1960) (The Builder, vol.13, no.5;
vol.14, no.6)

57. WONG Kwok Shuen（黄国璇）

Date of birth and death: 1920.2.17-?
Nationality: Chinese (Born in Hong Kong)
Educational background:
Yaumati Government School, 1932-1936
King’s College, 1936-1938
King’s College awarded Government Scholarship for Matric. Class, 1938-1939
Hong Kong University, Faculty of Civil Engineering (S.C.E. Department) , Sep.1939-
Jan.1942
Professional experience:
（广州）金宝澄 建筑师事务所从业人员
1945.10- 1947.8 under Mr. C.W. Pugh (A.M.I.C.E. Royal Naval Yard. H.K.)
1946.5- 1947.10 during evenings with the late Mr.H.M.Siu, (Authorized Architect)
1947.8-1954 Assistant Engineer with Mr. Hugh Braga B.Sc, A.M.I.W. AUST. Authorized
Architect and in charge of office since Jan.1953
Sep.1951- 1954 Part-time lecturer on Theory of Structures for Architectural Faculty,
University of Hong Kong
1955-1957 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, G. N. 931 of 1954 (Local Resident vouching:
Hugh Braga, Faber S.E.)
Addresses: 29 Tai Po Road, 2nd Fl., Kowloon (1952)
315-316, No. 9 Ice House Street (1954)
Principal works:
——Survey, layout and development of R.B.L.508, Headland road; Jardine’s Lookout and
Kowloon Tsai
——Design and supervision of houses on sites No. 3, 4, 39, 40, 43, & 27 on N.K.I.L.3548
Kowloon Tsai and on sites No. 16, 22, & 26 on I.L.6391 Jardine’s Lookout
——Structural plans and calculations for above houses at Jardine’s Lookout, Kowloon Tsai and
on Lots 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 14A of R.B.L.508 South Bay
——Structural Design for Kader Industrial Factory on I.L.6123 Tanner Road
——Structural Design for Hong Kong University Women’s Hostel
——Structural Design for Coca-Cola Bottling factory at King’s Road
——Structural Design for Salvation army Headquarters
——Structural Design for New Wah Yan College at Waterloo Rd. Kowloon

367
58. WONG Ting Ki (王定基) alias WONG Chan To (王镇涛) alias Henry WONG
Date of birth and death: 1918.4.20-?
Nationality: British subject by birth(born in Hong Kong, holder of British Passport No.1908.)
Educational background: Queen’s College, Hong Kong, 1928-1936
Passed Hong Kong University Matriculation Examination, Jun.1936
Graduated from the National Sun Yat-Sen University, degree of B.Sc. (Civil Engineering),
Jun.1946
Professional experience:
1936.7 – 1939.12 As Architect’s Assistant with Messrs. Way & Hall, Architects & Surveyors
1947 Engineer in charge of Surveying Party of the Hunan-Kwangsi-Kweichow Railway,
Kwangtung Branch
1947-1954- As Surveyor & Structural Engineer, and as Architect’s Assistant with Messrs.
Way & Hall
1955-1980- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, G. N.1025 of 1954 (P.S. Local Resident
vouching: G.A.V. Hall)
Address: Way & Hall, Architects & Surveyors, Kayamally Building, 4th Fl., Queen’s Road
Central Hong Kong (1954)
Principal works:
——R.B.L.542, Plantation Road, The Peak, Proposed Blocks of Flats (Surveying of site; R.C.C.
calculations &details; Drainage & other details)
——R.B.L.536, Deep Water Bay Road, European Residence (Surveying of site; helped in design
& prepared working drawings; R.C.C. Calculations & details, and miscellaneous details.)
K.I.L. 533, Kimberley Road, Hotel Miramar (Surveying of site; prepared working drawings &
miscellaneous details.)
——I.L. 2610, Pokfulam Road. The Duncan Sloss School of Engineering and Architecture (do)
Lots 224, 225 in D. D.354, Ting Kau, N.T. proposed Bungalow (do)
——N.K.I.L.3543, Tai Po Road, European Residence (Surveying of site; helped in design &
prepared working drawings & miscellaneous details.)
——I.L.1853, Pokfulam Road, Extensions to Main Building, Hong Kong University (do)
——Tai Po Primary School (do)
——D.D. Camp, Lantao (do)
——Lutheran Mission & School, S.D.No.2, Diamond Hill (do)
——Lots 399 in D.D.399, Ting Kau, N.T. European Residence (do)
——Lots 217,218,219,233 & 227 in D.D.399, Ting Kau, N.T. Week-end House (do)
——Peony House (1957) (The Builder, vol.13, no.1)
——Lutheran School and Church (1958) (The Builder, vol.13, no.5)
——Interesting Treatment of Space Problem, Orion Court (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.2)
——Confucian Academy at San Po Kang(1961) (The Builder, vol.16, no.2)
——Valley View (1962) (The Builder, vol.17, no.1)

59. WONG Ting-Tsai（王定斋）

Date of birth: 1921.1.26
Nationality: Chinese (born in Hong Kong)
Educational background: St. Joseph’s College, Hong Kong
Matriculated with Distinctions in Chemistry and Mathematics, 1938
Graduated from Hong Kong University, Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, having
won the “HO FOOK” Scholarship in the 3rd and final year, 1942

368
Professional experience:
Jan.1939-Nov.1941 Engineering Student Apprentice in Messrs. S.C. Yue & Co., Architects &
Engineers, Hong Kong
Mar.1942-Sep.1942 Engineering Assistant in Messrs. United Industrial Engineers, Kweilin,
Kwong-si, China
Oct.1942-Dec.1943 Assistant Engineer in Messrs. United Industrial Engineers, Kweilin,
Kwong-si, China
Apr.1944-Dec.1945, Assistant Engineer to Mr. Charles Lun Chou, Technical Adviser to
Macau Government, Macau
Jan.1946-June1949 Engineer & Architectural Assistant, Messrs Chau & Lee, Architects &
Civil Engineers, Hong Kong, designing various buildings, reinforced concrete details &
calculations, surveying & site formation work
1948.12 Foundation Members of the Engineering Society of Hong Kong
1950-1951 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 950 of 1949 (P.S. Local Resident vouching:
Chau I.N.)
1953-1966 Chief architect, HK PWD
Won prizes in several photography competitions
Address: c/o Messrs. Chau & Lee, Architects, Chung Tin Building, 5th Fl. (1949)
1966- Emigrated to Canada with his family
Government architect in Canada
Principal works:
——New Police Headquarters (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.1)(PWD)
——Police Quarters Wong Tai Sin (1967) (The Builder, vol.1967, no.12) (PWD)
——Tin Kwong Road (1960), Tanner Road (1961), Kennedy Town (1962), Tonkin Street
(1960s), Aberdeen (1990s) (P.S. Information provided by Dr. GU Da Qing at CUHK)

60. WONG Yue-kwong, David（黄汝光）

Date of birth and death: 1910.1.10-?
Nationality: Chinese
Educational background: Bachelor of Arts, University of Redlands, Redlands, California,
U.S.A., 1931
Bachelor of Science (Engineering), California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California,
U.S.A., 1932
Master of Science (Civil Engineering), California Institute of Technology Pasadena,
California, U.S.A.,1933
Professional experience:
1933.10-1935.1 Engineer in Public Works Department, Canton, checking calculations of
building projects
1935.2-1936.7 Professor in colleges of engineering, National Kwangsi University
1936.10-1938.8 Engineer, Canton-Meishien R.R., Cnaton-Hankow R.R., Surveyor, section
engineer
1938.9-1939.2 Professor in colleges of engineering, Kwok Min University
1939.3-1943.5 Engineer, Kunming-Sui-Fu R.R., Yunnan-Burma Highway, Yunnan-Burma
R.R., section engineer, head of designing section
1943.6-1946.12 Deputy to Chief Construction Engineer, U.S. Lend-lease Airfields in
Liuchow and Kweilin, Kwangsi, and Lushien, Szechuen, China
1947.1-1947.10 Senior Engineer, Chikiang-Kiangsi Railway, head of boring party, Kiang
River Bridge, Nanchang

369
 1947.11-1949.5 Assistant Chief Engineer, & District Engineer, Canton Harbor Construction
Office, Ministry of Communications
1948 广州市乙等建筑师
1949.6-1955 Structural Designing Work, part-time work carried out for architects in Hong
Kong, Messrs. S.K. Lau, Yu Seto, Faitfone Wong, etc.
Structural Engineer, Hong Kong Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd.
1956-1980- Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 211 of 1956 (P.S. Local Resident
vouching: Kadoorie)
Address: Hong Kong Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd. 2nd Fl., George’s Building,
Chater Road, Hong Kong (1955)
Principal works:
@ HK
——4-storey R.C.C. school building, Pui Ching Middle School, Waterloo Road, Kowloon (with
K.S. Lau)
——Gymnasium, chapel, and classroom buildings, Pui Ching Middle School, Kowloon (with
K.S. Lau)
——6-storey apartment building I.L.1381 MacDonnell Road (with Yu Seto)
——R.C.C. Residences, No. 51 Braga Circuit, Kowloon, No. 71 Kadoorie Ave., Kowloon (with
Faitfone Wong)
——The Peninsula Court Apartments, 12-storey structural steel building (with Faitfone Wong)
——New Power Station- Mei 0 (1963) (The Builder, vol.18, no.2)
——The Kowloon City Baptist Church (1964) (The Builder, vol.19, no.3)
——School Hall Shows its Structural Form (1969) (The Builder, vol.1969, no.7)
——Bronze Look Distinguishes Central Tower Block, St. George’s Building (1969) (The Builder,
vol.1969, no.7) (with F. Wong architect)

61. WOO John Shao-Ling (吴绍麟，字：绩唐)

Date of birth and death: 1911.9.12-?
Native place: 河北正定
Educational background:
北洋大学土木工程系毕业，1934
Certificate from the German Ministry of Treasury
Certificate of practical work from Dr. Petersen, Chief Architecture of the Municipal
Government of Berlin
Certificate from Prof. Boershman, Head of Department of Architecture, Technical College of
Berlin
Certificate of Architect from the Examination Yuen of the National Government of China
Professional experience:
Chief Engineer in the Department of Public Works of Chungking, China
Member of Provincial Government Committee in Sung Kiang Province, China
Certificate of Architect from the Ministry of Economy of the National Government of China
Certificate of Architect from the Shanghai Municipal Government
Certificate of Architect from the Taiwan Government
Letter of Appointment as Professor of Architecture in National Chia Tung University,
Shanghai
1950 年中国建筑师学会登记会员

370
 Letter of Approval to practice as an Authorized Architect in the Colony of North Borneo
form the Chairman of the Jesselton Sanitary Board to the Director of the Public Works
Department, Jesselton, North Borneo
1953-80- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 989 of 1952 (P.S. Local Resident vouching: Lee
Wai Tong)
Business Address: Wang, Ching & Co., 8 Queen’s Road Central, 1st Fl., Hong Kong (1952)
Room 244 Wang Hing Building, 10 Queen’s Rd., Central, Hong Kong（1958）
Publications:
——“公园与都市民生之关系及其设施概说”，《内政专刊-公共工程专刊》1 集，
1945.10
——Excerpt from the “Eastern Opinion” Magazine issued on 1st August, 1939, 1941 in Germany
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. LAI Delin for contributing the data in Chinese.

62. WU Chi-Koei (吴继轨)

Date of birth and death: 1912.10.8-?
Native place: 江苏嘉定
Educational background:
1935- Diplome d’Ingenierur, Institut Technique Franco-Chinois
Professional experience:
1935-1938 Pupilage of architectural design under Mr. G.D.Su of Su, Yang, Lei, Hsin Yieh
Architects & Engineerings
1939- Register Architect, Republic of China 经济部证书
1939-1948 Junior partner Architect of Hsin Yieh Architects, practicing in Nanking, Shanghai
and Kuming
1946.12 南京市工务局注册
自办（上海） 继轨建筑师事务所
1947.4 上海市工务局注册 甲等
自办（上海）鼎业建筑师事务所 甲等开业证
上海市建筑技师公会会员
1948-1953 Junior partner Architect of Hsin Yieh Architects
1954-1971 Hong Kong Authorized Architect (En), 966 of 1953 (P.S. Local Resident
vouching: Mrs. Ellen Tsao Li
)
Business Address: Hsin Yieh Architects, 401 Emporium Building, 62A Queen’s Road
Central, Hong Kong (1953)
Principal works:
——Pao Hsing Cotton Mill (1948) (The Builder, vol.8, no.5) (with Su.)
——New Church for the Seventh Day Adventists (1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.7) (with Su.)
——Ritz Cinema (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.3) (with Su)
——Theatre Royal (1959) (The Builder, vol.14, no.5,6)
——C.M.S. St. Thomas’ School (1953 completed, 1960 developed), Namchang Street,
Shamshuipo (The Builder, vol. 10, no. 1) (with Su.)
——4-storey Hang Seng Bank Building (1953), Nos.163 & 165 Queen’s Road Central; Ritz
Cinema (1951-1953), Nathan Road, Shan Tung Street, Portland Road and Nelson Street (with
Su.) (The Builder, vol. 10, no. 3)
P.S. The author appreciates Dr. LAI Delin for contributing the data in Chinese.

371
63. WU Ernest Yehwei alias NG, Yiu Wei (伍耀伟）
Educational background: B.Sc.(Eng.)(Chiao-Tung U.), A.M.I.Struct.E.
Professional experience: Wu & Chow Associates (1964)
Principal works:
——Sandy Bay Convalescent Home for Disabled Children (1962) (The Builder, vol.17, no.2)
(with Chan Pak-keung（陈百强）)
——Yip Fung Building Marks Spread of Office Area (1964) (The Builder, vol.18, no.4)
——Kam Hoi Mansion (1964) (The Builder, vol.18, no.5)
——Compact Flats in Big Demand by Middle Classes (Broadview Mansion) (1964) (The Builder,
vol.19, no.1) (Wu & Chow, with Chow, Chi-ngai（邹至毅）)
——Taking Advantage of a Long Narrow Site (1964) (The Builder, vol.19, no.4) Wu & Chow)
——Banking Pavilion at CMA Exhibition Designs (1969) (The Builder, vol.1969, no.12)

64. YEUNG Sik-chung（杨锡宗）

Date of birth and death: 1889.12.2-?
Native place: 广东中山 (born in Hong Kong)
Educational background:
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, College of Architecture, Degree of B.Arch. (1918)
Professional experience:
1918-1922 Returned to Hong Kong
1922 Served as Acting Director of Public Works, Canton
受陈炯明之聘，任福建漳州市政总工程师，规划漳州市道；同时任石码工务局局长广
州市政厅工务局取缔课长兼技士、广东省教育委员会建筑委员
南海县建设局长
1925 南京中山陵设计第三奖
1926 广州“总理纪念碑”图案竞赛第一名, 中山纪念堂设计竞赛第二奖
1929 参加广州市府合署图案竞赛
教育厅总工程师（许任）
广州市中山纪念堂建筑委员
广州市中山纪念堂管理委员会总干事
1931-1932 中山大学工学院土木工程系筹备委员会委员（The National Sun Yatsen
University: A Short History, 1937）
中山大学石牌新校舍总工程师
1933 广东省府合署图案竞赛第 3 名
1937.1 实业部登记，工 908
自营（广州）杨锡宗建筑师事务所，1946.1 广州市工务局建筑技师申请领证开业，甲
1008（firm members: 朱颂韶，谭子元，陈厚贻）（时年 53 岁）
1948 Committee of City Planning, Canton
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
1925-28,53-76 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 586 of 1924
1956 HKSA Member，60
Address: No.6 Ema Avenue, Kowloon (1952)
1, Minden Avenue, Kowloon (1959)
Principal works:
——Campus of Dr. Sun Yat Sen University, Shek Pai, Canton, 1930

372
——Memorial Cemetery of the 19th Route Army, Canton
——Chung Yuen Memorial Library, Canton
——Kwong Tung Provincial Bank, Swatow Branch, Swatow
——South East Bund, Swatow, 1947
——Canton Municipal Bank, Canton, 1947 广州市银行长堤新行
——广州中央公园（1918）、黄花岗七十二烈士墓后期规划及建筑 、南京中山陵方案竞赛
第三奖（1925） 、广州中山纪念堂方案竞标第二名（1926） 、广州中山纪念碑方案
（1926） 、培正中学美洲堂（1927）、中山大学水塔（1930） 、十九路军陵园
（1932）、广东省银行江门、韶关、海口等支行、广州法币发行管理委员会办公楼（不
详） 、广州长堤太平南路新华、新亚酒店（原“嘉南堂”）、广州北京路北科技书店、广
州市银行华侨新村（今中山路入白云路路口地段）、（1947-1948）等
Publications:
——《汕头市政计划举要》（与翁桂清合著），1947
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

65. YOUNG Kai Mei, Canning（杨介眉）

Date of birth: 19th June 1900-?
Native place: Chung-shan, Kwangtung
Educational background:
1925 B. Arch., B.A. Boone Wuchang
1927 Civil Engineer, Diploma, International Correspondent School
1936 M.A. in Architecture, Design and Fine Arts, Mich.
Professional experience:
1925-1934 Mission Architect, American Church Mission, Wuchang
1932 Authorized Architecture, National Government
1936-1943 University Architect, and Head of the Dept. of Arch., National Szechuan
University, Chengtu
1939-1950 University Architect, Superintendent of Construction and Professorm West China
Union University, Chengtu
1942 Authorized Professorin Architecture, Ministry of Education, Central Government
1943-1945 Consultant Architect, Provincial Government, Chengtu
1945-1946 Architect Municipal Government, Chengtu
1950- Lecturer in Architecture, and Deputy Architect, University of Hong Kong
Principal works:
——1936 Provincial Stadium, Wuchang
——1936-1943 University Library, Science Buildings, Scechuan University, Chengtu
——1942 Dr. Sen Yat Sun Memorial Hall, Chengtu, Winning Design
——Civic Center, Chengtu (proposed design)
——1944 City Planning, Chengtu
——1949 University Church, W.C.U.U. Chengtu, completed
——University Hospital, W.C.U.U. Chengtu, completed

66. YUAN Mrs. Ying-hsi (袁成莹犀)

Educational background: B.Eng.(Tsing-Hua U.),M.Eng.(Liverpool),A.M.Am.S.C.E.
Professional experience:
1948.12 Foundation Members of the Engineering Society of Hong Kong

373
 1948-1957 Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 980 of 1948
-1948- Hong Kong & Whampo a Dock Co., Ltd.
-1957 Lecturer in Theory of Structure at University of Hong Kong
Back to Mainland China (?)
Publication:
——柯特.西格尔著 成莹犀译 冯纪中校《现代建筑的结构与造形》北京：中国建工出版
社， 1991

67. YUEN Tat-Cho（阮达祖）

Date of birth and death: 1908-?
Native place: 广东新会
Educational background:
香港大学工程系学士，B.Sc. (Eng.) (Hong Kong)
（英）利物浦大学（U. of Liverpool）建筑系毕业，B. Arch., 1930-1933.7
Professional experience:
1934.1-1934.12（上海）中国银行建筑课 助理建筑师
1934.7 经陆谦受、吴景奇 介绍加入中国建筑师学会
1935.1-建明建筑师事务所 建筑师
1936.1 实业部建筑科技师登记
1939-1980- Hong Kong Authorized Architect, 885 of 1938
（重庆）阮达祖建筑师事务所，1943 重庆市工务局技（副师）申请开业登记，337
1948 广州市甲等建筑师
1950 中国建筑师学会登记会员
Messrs. T. C. Yuen & Co., Hong Kong (firm members: CHAU Po Cheung (周宝璋)
CHAN Kwok Koon (陈国冠))
1956 HKSA Foundation Member, 19
Address: 740-742, Alexandra House, Des Voeux Road Central (1959)
1601/1604 Union House, Chater Road (1966)
Principal works:
——Yip Mansion (1949) (The Builder, vol.7, no.3; vol.8, no.3)
——Private School (1949) (The Builder, vol.7, no.4)
——Residence(1949) (The Builder, vol.7, no.4)
——St. Louis Mansion(1950) (The Builder, vol.8, no.6)
——Hang Seng Bank Building (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.3)
——United Apartments, Great George Street (1953) (The Builder, vol.10, no.4)
——Grand Court Apartments, Kadoorie Anenue(1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.4)
——Apartments at 2-8 Kotewall Rd. (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.4)
——New Hostel in KL. (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.5)
——Apartments at Stanley (1955) (The Builder, vol.11, no.5)
——Eastern Hospital Rd. Primary School (1957) (The Builder, vol.12, no.6)
——Peak Rd. Apartment Project (1957) (The Builder, vol.12, no.6)
——A Towering New Residential Estate, Royden Court (1960) (The Builder, vol.14, no.6)
——Hang Seng Bank’s New Head Office To Have First-Floor Business Hall, Shop Arcades
(1960) (The Builder, vol.15, no.2,4; vol.17, no.3,5)
——One Simple Idea Achieves High Standard Living in Aberdeen Low Cost Housing Project 渔
光村(1963) (The Builder, vol.18, no.1)

374
——Audiences Will not Meet “Head-on” in New Cinema (East Town Cinema) (1964) (The
Builder, vol.19, no.1)
——Kowloon’s Biggest Office Project (Tung Ying) (1964) (The Builder, vol.19, no.4)
——Split-level Raft Supports New Tower Block, Hang Chong Building (1965) (The Builder,
vol.1965, no.1)
——HK $2 Million Nursing and Trainning Center (1968) (The Builder, vol.1968, no.12)
——Hang Seng Bank’s Tsimshatsui Branch (1972) (The Builder, vol.1972, no.5)
——European Type Houses, Kotewall Road; Wongneichong Road; Stanley Village Road (1954
approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 2)
——Apartments, South Bay Road (2 Blocks); Stanley Village Road (3 Blocks); 1 Hotel & Shops,
Tongkin Street (1955 approved) (The Builder, vol. 11, no. 4)
——6 Chinese Type House, Tai Po Road; 4 European Type House, Caine Road (1956 approved)
(The Builder, vol. 11, no. 6)
——1 Chinese Type House (1956 approved), Off Peak Road (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 4)
——1 School (1957 approved), Kui In Fong (The Builder, vol. 12, no. 5)
——2 Chinese Type House (1957 approved), Queen’s Road East (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 1)
——1 European Type House, 5, Peak Road; 1 Factory, Hoi Yuen Road & Hing Yip Street (1958
approved) (The Builder, vol. 13, no. 5)
—— Royden Court (1958), 71 Island Road (The Builder, vol. 13, no.6, vol. 14, no.6)
——Hang Seng Bank (1959 approved), 77 Des Vouex Road Central (The Builder, vol. 14, no. 3,
vol. 15, no. 2, vol. 17, no. 5)
——Servants’ Quarter & Store, 254 Stubbs Road, The Peak; Low Cost Housing Block A.B.C.,
Aberdeen Reservoir Road (1960 approved) (The Builder, vol. 15, no. 5)
——6-Storey Composite Building, 77& 79 Bonham Strand West & 239 & 241 Wing Lok Street;
14-Storey Hang Seng Bank Building, 675-677 Nathan Road (1961 approved) (The Builder, vol.
16, no. 1)
——12-Storey Composite Building, Fenwick Street and Jaffie Road; 4-Storey Training Centre,
J/O Mok Cheong Street & To Kwa Wan Road; European Type Houses, Ku Tung (Dill’s Corner)
(25 Blocks of 2-storey); 71 Island Road, Repulse Bay (13-storey) (1961 approved) (The Builder,
vol. 16, no. 4)
——14-storey European Type Flats, 9 Conduit Road; 8-storey School, Bonham Road; Cinema
Building, Lockhart Road, Fenwick Street & Jaffe Road(1962 approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no.
3)
——8-storey Tenement Buildings, Aberdeen Reservoir Road Block E, D; European Type Flats,
18 Shouson Hill Road (3 Blocks of 3-storey); 22 & 22A Kennedy Road (13-storey) (1963
approved) (The Builder, vol. 17, no. 6)
——6-Storey Office Building (1963 approved), 114 Queen’s Road Central; Yue Kwong Estate (5
Blocks), Aberdeen Reservoir Road (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 1)
——14-storey European Type Flats (1963 approved), 146-148 Prince Edward Road (The Builder,
vol. 18, no. 2)
——12-storey Tenement Building, 180-182 Tai Po Road; 16-storey Composite Building,
Granville Road; European Type Flats, 22 Plunkett’s Road, The Peak (7-storey); 3 Headland Road
(3-storey) (1963 approved) (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 3)
——7-Storey Tenement Building (1964 approved), 79-85 Hill Road (The Builder, vol. 18, no. 6)
——10-Storey Factory Building (1964 approved), Kwun Tong (The Builder, vol. 19, no. 3)
——Site Formation of Diocesan Boy’s School (1951), 113 Argyle Street
P.S. The above data have been published in (Lai, Wang, Yuan & Si, 2006)

375
 Reference

Anderson, B. R. O. G. (1983). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and

spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

The Architect. (Vol. 1975-). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Architects.

Architects practices. (1982). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Architects.

Boyd, A. C. H. (1962). Chinese architecture and town planning: 1500 B.C. - A.D.
1911. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bozdogan, S. (2001). Modernism and nation building: Turkish architectural culture

in the early republic. Seattle; London: University of Washington Press.

Cao, X. 曹汛 (1995). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Ying kou pian 中国近代建
筑总览. 营口篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Yingkou) (Di 1
ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu dian
jing xiao.

Chan, E. H. W. 陈汉云, & Hong Kong Institute of Architects. (2006). Architectural

blueprint: HKIA 50th anniversary commemorative book (Jian zhu hong tu 建
筑宏图). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Architects.

Chang, C. K. 张肇康, & Blaser, W. (1987). China: Tao in architecture. Basel:

Birkhauser.

Chang, K. N. 张公权 (1943). China's struggle for railroad development New York:
The John Day Co.

Chang, W. M., et al. (1993). Chang Chao Kang 张肇康 1922-1992: Committee for
the Chang Chao Kang Memorial Exhibit.

Chen, B. C. 陈伯超 (1995). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Shen yang pian 中国
近 代 建 筑 总 览 . 沈 阳 篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in
Shenyang) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she:
Xin hua shu dian jing xiao.

376
Chen, C. Z. 陈从周, & Zhang, M. 章明 (1988). Shanghai jin dai jian zhu shi gao 上
海近代建筑史稿 (Historical materials on modern architecture in Shanghai)
(Di 1 ban. ed.). Shanghai: Shanghai san lian shu dian.

Chinese Society of Architects. (1928.8). The China Journal of Science and Arts.

Chinese University of Hong Kong., & Szeto, W. (1964). Chinese University of Hong
Kong development plan: a preliminary report on the layout and proposals of
the grouping and planning of buildings to meet both the present and planned
ultimate growth of the University. Hong Kong: the University.

Cody, J. W. (1996). Striking a harmonious chord: foreign missionaries and Chinese-

style building, 1911-1949 [electronic version]. Architronic,

Cody, J. W. (1996). American planning in republican China, 1911-1937. Planning

perspectives, 11, 339-377.

Cody, J. W. (c2001). Building in China: Henry K. Murphy's "adaptive architecture,"

1914-1935 Hong Kong The Chinese University Press.

Cody, J. W. (2002). Bilateral asymmetries: Hong Kong and Shanghai's building

dynamics, 1916-1966. Paper presented at the international conference on
Repositioning Hong Kong and Shanghai in modern Chinese history, Hong
Kong.

Collins, P. (1965). Changing ideals in modern architecture, 1750-1950. London:

Faber and Faber.

Crinson, M. (2003). Modern architecture and the end of empire. Aldershot, Hants;
Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate.

Cumine, E. (1974). Lunghua CAC-kles: April 1943 - August 1945: the internment of
allied civilians at the Civil Assembly Centre, Lunghua, Kiangsu, China. Hong
Kong: Eric Byron Cumine.

Delande, N. (1995). The basis of modern construction industry in China: organization

of the professional field in Shanghai during the republican period. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Chinese Architectural History,
Hong Kong.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1986). Kafka: toward a minor literature. Minneapolis,
Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.

377
Derrida, J. (2004). On cosmopolitanism. In S. Cairns (Ed.), Drifting: architecture and
migrancy (pp. 48-61). London; New York: Routledge.

DeVries, J. (1984). European urbanization, 1500-1800. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

Dong, D. Y. 董大酉 (1935). Shanghai tu shu guan, bo wu guan, yi yuan ji wei shen
shi yan suo 上海图书馆,博物馆,医院及卫生实验所 (municipal museum,
library and hospital of Shanghai). Zhongguo Jian zhu 中国建筑 (Chinese
architect), 3(2).

Duara, P. (1993). De-Constructing the Chinese Nation. The Australian Journal of

Chinese Affairs, 30(July), 1-26.

Duara, P. (1995). Rescuing history from the nation: questioning narratives of modern
China. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Eastman, L. E. (1991). The Nationalist era in China, 1927-1949. Cambridge England:

Cambridge University Press.

Er, D. Q. 尔冬强 (2006). Shanghai art deco (Shanghai zhuang shi yi shu pai 上海装
饰艺术派). Hong Kong: Old China Hand Press.

Esherick, J. W. (c2000). Modernity and Nation in the Chinese City. In J. W. Esherick

(Ed.), Remaking the Chinese city: modernity and national identity, 1900-1950
(pp. 1-16). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Fairbank, W. (1994). Liang and Lin: partners in exploring China's architectural past.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Fan, W. Z. 范文照 (1932). Zhong guo jian zhu shi xue hui yuan qi 中国建筑师学会
缘起 （The reaseon for founding the Society of Chinese Architects). Zhong
guo jian zhu 中国建筑 (Chinese Architect) (initial issue), 3.

Fan, W. Z. 范文照 (1934). Zhongguo de jian zhu 中国的建筑(Chinese architecture).

Wen Hua Jian She 文化建设 (culture construction), 1(1), 135.

Fan, W. Z. 范文照 (1936). Ou you gan xiang 欧游感想 (views on the tour to Europe)
Zhong guo jian zhu 中国建筑 (Chinese Architect), 24, 11-19.

378
Fang, Y. 方拥 (1984). Tong Jun xian sheng he zhong guo jin dai jian zhu 童寯先生和
中国近代建筑(Tong Jun and the modern architecture in China). Southeast
University, Nanjing.

Faure, D. (Writer) (2004). Discussing Hong Kong social history, Public talks on
narrating Hong Kong studies. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Culture and
Society Program, Centre of Asian Studies, the University of Hong Kong.

Feng, B. Y. 冯邦彦 (1997). Xianggang hua zi cai tuan, 1841-1997 香港华资财团

(Chinese capitalists in Hong Kong, 1841-1997). Xianggang: San lian shu dian
(Xianggang) you xian gong si

Feng, J. 冯晋 (1998). Dong fang zhu yi yu er shi shi ji zhongguo jian zhu de bei lun
东方主义与二十世纪中国建筑的悖论 (Orientalism and the paradox of the
architecture in China in the 20th century). Jian zhu shi 建筑师 (Architect), 85,
10.

Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Awakening China: politics, culture, and class in the Nationalist
Revolution. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Fletcher, B. (1961 17th ed.). A history of architecture on the comparative method. In.
London: University of London, The Athione Press.

Frampton, K. (1985). Modern architecture: a critical history (Rev. and enl. ed.).
London: Thames and Hudson.

Fu, C. Q. 傅朝卿 (1995). Chinese styles in the works of the first generation architects
in post-war Taiwan - a comparative study of Lu Yu-chun, Wang Da-hong, He-
chen Tzu, Chang Chao-kang and Chen Jen-ho. In International Conference on
Chinese Architectural History (pp. 41-66). Hong Kong: Dept. of Architecture,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Fu, X. N. 傅熹年, & Steinhardt, N. S. (2002). Chinese architecture. New Haven;

London; Beijing: Yale University Press; New World Press.

Gao, T. Q. 高添强 (2006). Sang zang fu wu yu yuan ji an zang 丧葬服务与原籍安葬

(Funeral services and native place burials). In Y. W. Lau & E. Sinn (Eds.), Yi
shan xing dao: Dong hua san yuan 135 zhou nian ji nian zhuan ti wen ji 益善
行道：东华三院 135 周年纪念专题文集 (The Tung Wah Hospital 135th
anniversary commemorative proceedings) (Xianggang di 1 ban. ed., pp. 341).
Xianggang: San lian shu dian (Xianggang) you xian gong si.

379
Ge, J. X. 葛剑雄 (1997). Zhongguo yi min shi 中国移民史 (The history of the
internal migraion of China). Fuzhou: Fu jian ren ming chu ban she.

Goodman, B. (1995). Native place, city, and nation: regional networks and identities
in Shanghai, 1853-1937. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Goodstadt, L. F. (1969). Urban housing in Hong Kong, 1945-63 In I. C. Jarvie & J.

Agassi (Eds.), Hong Kong: a society in transition: contributions to the study of
Hong Kong society (pp. xxix, 378). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Grantham, A. W. G. H. (1965). Via ports, from Hong Kong to Hong Kong. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Gu, D. Q. 顾大庆 & Chung Chi College (2007). An exhibition on Chung Chi original
campus and buildings in the 1960s, Chung Chi Administration Building,
CUHK, 2007.10-12.

Guo, H. S. 郭湖生 (1993). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Xia men pian 中国近
代建筑总览.厦门篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Xiamen)
(Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu
dian jing xiao.

Hamashita, T. (1997). Xianggang da shi ye: Ya Zhou wang luo zhong xin 香港大视
野 ： 亚 洲 网 络 中 心 (A big picture of Hong Kong: center of the Asian
network). Xianggang: Shang wu yin shu guan.

Hambro, E. I., & Mission., H. K. R. S. (1955). The problem of Chinese refugees in

Hong Kong: report submitted to the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees. Leyden: Sijthoff.cc

He, B. D. 何炳棣 (1959). Studies on the population of China, 1368-1953. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press.

He, C. J. 何重建 (1991). Shanghai jin dai ying zao ye de xing cheng yu te zheng 上海
近 代 营 造 业 的 形 成 与 特 征 (The formation and characteristices of the
Shanghai modern contracting industry) Paper presented at the The 3rd
symposium on the history of modern Chinese architecture, Da Lian.

Hitchcock, H. R., & Johnson, P. (1995). The international style. New York; London:
W.W. Norton.

HKIA journal. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Architects.

380
HKIA journal. Hong Kong: PACE Publishing Ltd.

HKIA newsletter: the official newsletter of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects.
(Vol. Ceased with Nov./Dec. 2003.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of
Architects.

Ho, S. P. S. 何保山, & Yale University. Economic Growth Center. (1978). Economic
development of Taiwan, 1860-1970. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Home, R. K. (1997). Of planting and planning: the making of British colonial cities.
London: E & FN Spon.

Hong Kong and Far East Builder. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Builder.

Hong Kong Housing Authority (1955). Annual report (Vol. 1954/55-1972/73.). Hong
Kong: Govt. Printer.

Hong Kong Housing Authority (1974). Annual report (Vol. 1973/74-). Hong Kong:
Govt. Printer.

Hong Kong Institute of Architects. Annual report (Vol. 1974-). Hong Kong: the
Institute.

Hong Kong Institute of Architects. Newsletter. Hong Kong: the Institute.

Hong Kong Institute of Architects (2006). Re lian jian zhu: yu shi wu Xianggang zi
shen jian zhu shi de dui hua 热恋建筑 : 与十五香港资深建筑师的对话
(affection for architecture: talks with fifteen Hong Kong senior architects).
Xianggang: Xianggang jian zhu shi xue hui.

Hong Kong Society of Architects. Year book. Hong Kong: the Society.

Hong Kong. Annual report. Hong Kong: Govt. Printer.

Hong Kong. Architectural Services Dept. (1997). The Government's architect. Hong
Kong.

Hong Kong. Buildings Ordinance Office. Monthly statistics relating to the work
carried out by the Buildings Ordinance Office, Public Works Department.
Hong Kong: the Office.

381
Hong Kong. Lands and Works Branch. Information and Public Relations Unit., &
Hong Kong. Building Development Dept. (1986). Building: a guide to
building development in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: the Unit.

Hou, Y. B. 侯幼彬 (1992). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Ha'erbin pian 中国近
代建筑总览.哈尔滨篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Ha’erbin)
(Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu
dian jing xiao.

Hou, Y. B. 侯幼彬 (2003). Hui gu yu qi pan: zai zhong guo jin dai jian zhu xue shu si
xiang ti xi guo ji yan tao hui shang de fa yan 回顾与期盼：在中国近代建筑
学术思想体系国际讨论会上的发言 （Retrospect and prospect: speech at the
International Symposium for the Research on China's Modern Architectural
Academia in the 20th Century). In Zhao, C. 赵辰 (Ed.), Research on China's
modern architectural academia (pp. 23-26). Beijing: Jian zhu gong ye.

Hsü, C. C. 徐敬直 (1964). Chinese architecture: past and contemporary. Hong Kong:
Sin Poh Amalgamated (H.K.) Limited.

Hu, S. N. 胡树志 (1992). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Yan tai pian 中国近代
建筑总览.烟台篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Yantai) (Di 1
ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu dian
jing xiao.

Huang, J. M. 黄健敏 (1985). Zhong guo jian zhu jiao yu su wang 中国建筑教育溯往
(A review of the architectural education in China). Jian zhu shi 建 筑 师
(Architect；Chinese architect 1982-)(131), 34-39.

Huang, K. J. 黄克剑 (1992). Dong fang wen hua: liang nan zhong de jue ze 东方文化:
两难中的抉择 (The East culture: a great dilemma) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Nanchang
Shi: Jiangxi ren min chu ban she.

Hui, D. C. K. 许焯权 (2000). Curriculum Reform in the Department of Architecture

the University of Hong Kong (HKU). In Architectural education at the
University of Hong Kong (p. 80). Hong Kong: Hinge Marketing Ltd.

Hunt, M. H. (1972). The American remission of the Boxer Indemnity: a reappraisal.

Journal of Asian Studies, 31(3), 539-559.

International Co-operative Alliance. Housing Committee. (1980). Co-operative

housing. Berlin: the Alliance.

382
Jia, B. S. 贾倍思, & Jia, Y. Y 贾云艳. (2003). Modernism or revolution: the dilemma
of China's architectural pioneers. In Zhao C. 赵辰 (Ed.), Research on China's
modern architectural academia (pp. 26-37). Beijing: Jian zhu gong ye.

Jia, B. S.贾倍思, & Ren, Z. J. 任智劼 (2007). He zuo she zhu zhai ji qi zai xiang gang
de shi jian 合作社住宅及其在香港的实践 (Co-operative housing and the
Hong Kong practices). Paper presented at the 15th Chinese Academic
Conference on Venacular Architecture, Xi An.

Jian zhu xue bao 建筑学报 (Architectural journal). (1954). Beijing: Zhongguo jian
zhu xue hui.

Jian zhu yue kan 建筑月刊(The builder). Shanghai: Shanghai Builders’ Association.

Jiang, G. C. 蔣高宸 (1993). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Kunming pian 中国
近代建筑总览.昆明篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Kunming)
(Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu
dian jing xiao.

Johnston, T. (1994). Near to heaven: western architecture in China's old summer

resorts (1st ed. ed.). Hong Kong: Old China Hand Press.

Johnston, T. (1996a). Far from home: western architecture in China's northern treaty
ports (1st ed. ed.). Hong Kong: Old China Hand Press.

Johnston, T. (1996b). God & country: western religious architecture in old China (1st
ed. ed.). Hong Kong: Old China Hand Press.

Johnston, T. (1998). Hallowed halls: Protestant colleges in old China (1st ed. ed.).
Hong Kong: Old China Hand Press.

Johnston, T. (2000). Frenchtown Shanghai: western architecture in Shanghai's old

French concession (1st ed. ed.). Hong Kong: Old China Hand Press.

Johnston, T. (2004). A last look, revisited: western architecture in old Shanghai (Rev.
ed. ed.). Hong Kong: Old China Hand Press.

Johnston, T., & Erh, D. (1993). A last look: western architecture in old Shanghai (1st
ed.). Hong Kong: Old China Hand Press.

383
Koegel, E. (2007). Two students of Poelzig in emigration: Rudolf Hamburger and
Richard Paulick between Shanghai and East-Berlin (1930-1955) Bauhaus
University Weimar, Weimar.

Kostof, S. (1977). The architect: chapters in the history of the profession. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Kurokawa, K. (2004). Kisho Kurokawa: philosophy of urban design and its planning
method Beijing: Jian zhu gong ye.

Kvan, T., Liu, B. K. 刘秉琨, & Jia, Y. Y. 贾云艳 (accepted for publication November
2005). The emergence of a profession: development of the profession of
architecture in China. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research.

Lai, D. L.赖德霖, Qian, F. 钱锋, Peng, C. X. 彭长歆, Wang, H. Y. 王浩娱, Yuan, X.

P. 袁雪平, & Si, C. J. 司春娟 (c2004). Zhong guo jin dai da xue jian zhu xi bi
ye sheng 中 国 近 代 大 学 建 筑 系 毕 业 生 （ Chinese modern architectural
students）. Building review (326-329, 332).

Lai, D. L. 赖德霖 (2002). Cong hong guan de xu shu dao ge an de zhui wen: jin dai
jiang zhu shi yan jiu ping shu 从宏观的叙述到个案的追问：近代建筑史研
究评述 (From grand narratives to case studies: a review on the study of
modern Chinese architecture in the past 15 years). Jian zhu xue bao 建筑学报
(Architectural journal), 2002(no.6).

Lai, D. L. 赖德霖 (2005). Searching for a modern Chinese monument: the design of
the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum in Nanjing. The Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians, 64(1), 22-55.

Lai, D. L. 赖德霖 (2007). Zhong guo jin dai jian zhu shi yan jiu 中国近代建筑史研
究 (Studies in modern Chinese architectural history). Beijing: Tsinghua
University Press.

Lai, D. L. 赖德霖, Wang, H. Y. 王浩娱, Yuan, X. P.袁雪平, & Si, C. J.司春娟 (Eds.).
(2006). Jin dai zhe jiang lu 近代哲将录 (Who's who in modern Chinese
architecture). Beijing: China Water Power Press, Intellectual Property
Publishing House.

Lam, T. C. W. 林中伟 (2006). From British colonization to Japanese invation: the

100 years architects in Hong Kong 1841-1941. HKIA Journal, 1st Quarter
2006(45), 44-55.

384
Lau, P. S. S. 刘秀成 (1997). Xiang gang da xue jian zhu xi: guo qu, xian zai, wei lai
香 港 大 学 建 筑 系 ： 过 去 , 现 在 , 未 来 (Department of Architecture, the
University of Hong Kong, Past, Present and Future). Shi dai jian zhu 时代建
筑 （Time + Architecture）, 1997(3).

Lee, O. F. 李歐梵 (1999). Shanghai modern： the flowering of a new urban culture
in China, 1930-1945. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Lee, P. G. 李锦沛 (1935). High professional status attained by Chinese architects in

brief period. The China reconstruction & engineering review, 6(2), 60-61.

Lee, P. T. 李培德 (2002). Chinese bankers coming to Hong Kong in before or after
1949: the case of Chen Guangfu. In the International Conference on A
Historical Turning Point: China in 1949. Chengdu: Si chuan ren ming chu ban
she.

Leeming, F. (1977). Street studies in Hong Kong: localities in a Chinese city. Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press.

Levenson, J. R. (1958). Confucian China and its modern fate (1st combined ed.).
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Li, C. Y. 李传义 (1992). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Wu han pian 中国近代
建筑总览.武汉篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Wuhan) (Di 1
ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu dian
jing xiao.

Li, H. Q. 李海清 (2004). Zhongguo jian zhu xian dai zhuan xing 中国建筑现代转型
(The modernization of Chinese architecture) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Dong
nan da xue chu ban she.

Li, J. 李诫 (1103). Ying zao fa shi 营造法式 (Building standards).

Li, S. Q. 李士桥 (2002). Writing a Modern Chinese Architectural History: Liang

Sicheng and Liang Qichao. Journal of Architectural Education (Sep.), 35-45.

Liang, S. C. 梁思成 (1975). Gu jian zhu lun cong 古建筑论丛 (Essays on traditional
architecture) (Chu ban. ed.). Xianggang: Shen zhou tu shu gong si.

Liang, S. C. 梁思成 (1984). Liang Sicheng wen ji 梁思成文集 (Sections). Taibei:

Ming wen shu ju.

385
Liang, S. C. 梁思成 (2001). Liang Sicheng quan ji 梁思成全集 (Works of Liang Si
Cheng) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Liang, S. C. 梁 思 成 , & Fairbank, W. (1984). A pictorial history of Chinese

architecture: a study of the development of its structural system and the
evolution of its types. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Liang, S. C. 梁思成 (1935). Preface. In Liang, S. C. 梁思成 & Liu, Z. P. 刘致平

(Eds.), Jian zhu she ji can kao tu ji 建筑设计参考图集 (Reference pictures for
architectural design). Beijing: Zhongguo ying zao xue she (Institute for
research in Chinese architecture).

Liang, S. C. 梁思成 (1985 ed.). Zhong guo jian zhu shi 中国建筑史 (History of
Chinese architecture). In Liang Si Cheng wen ji 梁思成文集 (Sections) (Vol. 3,
pp. 261). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Lin, Y. 林原 (1993). Bao hao si, jian zhu he wo: zhuan fang Chang Chao Kang xian
sheng 包浩斯，建筑与我：专访张肇康先生 (Bauhaus, architecture and I:
interviewing Mr. Chang Chao Kang). Lian he wen xue 联合文学 (UNITAS: a
literary monthly), 9(3), 222-228.

Lin, Z. 林洙 (1996). Jian zhu shi Liang Sicheng 建筑师梁思成 (Architect: Liang
Sicheng). Tianjin： Tianjin ke xue ji shu chu ban she

List of architectural practices. (Vol. Ceased in 1981.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Institute of Architects.

Liu, F. 刘凡 (1991). Lu Yan Zhi yu zhong shan ling jian zao jing guo 吕彦直与中山
陵建造经过 (Lu Yan Zhi and the building of the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum in
Nanjing) Paper presented at the The 3rd symposium on the history of modern
Chinese architecture, Da Lian.

Liu, X. D. 刘向东 (1986). Guang sha hun： jian zhu xue jia Yang Tingbao zhuan 广
厦 魂 ： 建 筑 学 家 杨 廷 宝 传 (The spirit of building: a biography of the
architect YANG Ting Pao). Nanjing: Jiangsu ke xue ji shu chu ban she.

Liu, X. J. 刘先觉 (1992). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Nanjing Pian 中国近代
建筑总览.南京篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Nanjing) (Di
1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu dian
jing xiao.

386
Liu, Y. 刘颖, & Li, Z. T. 黎志涛 (2006). Dang dai Zhongguo jie chu de jian zhu shi:
YangTingbao 中国当代杰出的建筑师, 建筑教育家: 杨廷宝 (Yang Ting Bao:
the most eminent architect in modern China) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing:
Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Liu, Z. P. 刘致平 (1992). Ji nian Zhu Qiqian, Liang Sicheng, Liu Dunzhen san wei
xian shi 纪念朱启钤,梁思成,刘敦桢三位先师 (memorials to 3 deceased
teachers: Zhu Qiqian, Liang Sicheng, Liu Dunzhen ). Hua zhong jian zhu 华中
建筑 (Huazhong architecture China), 1(1).

Look, K. F. (1952). Business directory of Hong Kong, Macao & Canton. Hong Kong:
K. F. Look.

Luke, H. S. 陆谦受, & Wu, C. K. 吴景奇 (1936a). Shuo ming 说明 (Introduction).

Zhong guo Jian zhu 中国建筑 (Chinese Architect)(26).

Luke, H. S. 陆谦受, & Wu, C. K. 吴景奇 (1936b). Wo men de zhu zhang 我们的主
张 (Our Declaration). Zhong guo Jian zhu 中国建筑 (Chinese Architect)(26).

Lung, D. P. Y. 龙炳颐 (1997). Xianggang de cheng shi fa zhan he jian zhu 香港的城
市发展和建筑 (Urban evolution and architecture in Hong Kong). In Wang, G.
W. 王赓武 (Ed.), Xianggang shi xin bian 香港史新编 (Hong Kong history:
new perspectives) (pp. 265). Hong Kong: san lian chu ban she.

Luo, X. W. 罗小未, Wu, G. Z. 吴光祖, & Li, D. H. 李德华 (1996). Shanghai jian zhu
zhi nan 上海建筑指南 (A guide to Shanghai architecture) (Di 1 ban. ed.).
Shanghai: Shanghai ren min mei shu chu ban she.

Ma, X. Z. 马秀之 (1992). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Guangzhou pian 中国
近 代 建 筑 总 览 . 广 州 篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in
Guangzhou) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

MacPherson, K. L. (1990). Designing China's urban future: the greater Shanghai plan,
1927-1937. Planning perspectives, 10, 39-62.

Mann, S. (1984). Urbanization and historical change in China. Modern China, 10(1),
79-113.

Masuda, A., & Muramatsu, S. (1998). Zusetsu Shanhai: modan toshi no

hyakugojunen. Tokyo: Kawade Shobo Shinsha.

387
McIsaac, L. (c2000). The city as nation: creating a wartime capital in Chongqing. In J.
W. Esherick (Ed.), Remaking the Chinese city ： modernity and national
identity, 1900-1950 (pp. 47-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Morris, J. (1986). Architecture of the British Empire. London: Weidenfeld and

Nicolson,.

Munsterberg, H. (1954). A short history of Chinese art. London: Peter Owen.

Muramatsu, S., & Bao, M. P. (2003). Jian zhu yu dong fang zhu yi / guo jia zhu yi 建
筑 与 东 方 主 义 / 国 家 主 义 (Architecture and Orientalism/Nationalism). In
Zhao C. 赵辰 (Ed.), Research on China's modern architectural academia (pp.
56-65). Beijing: Jian zhu gong ye.

Muramatsu, S., Mukai, H., & Takenaka, A. (1997). Hong Kong: City of multiple
layers. Tokyo: Toho Shoten.

Murphy, H. K. (1928). An architectural renaissance in China: the utilization in

modern public buildings of the great styles of the past. Asia, 28(June), 468-
674.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪 (2005). Bai nian jian zhu de ren shi jing wu: er shi san wei xiang
gang jian zhu shi ji shi wu suo xiao zhuan 百年建筑的人事境物：23 位香港
建筑师及事务所小传(100 years of Hong Kong architecture: chronicles of 23
Hong Kong architects and firms). In C. E. Chen & H. X. Cai (Eds.), Kong jian
zhi l ü： Xianggang jian zhu bai nian 空间之旅：香港建筑百年 (Space
traveling: 100 years of Hong Kong architecture) (pp. 160-171). Hong Kong:
San lian shu dian (Xianggang) you xian gong si.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪 (2006a). The begining. In Chan, E. H. W. 陈汉云 & Hong Kong
Institute of Architects. (Eds.), Architectural blueprint: HKIA 50th anniversary
commemorative book (pp. 53-59). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of
Architects.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪 (2006b). Historic review of Hong Kong architectural practice. In

Chan, E. H. W. 陈 汉 云 & Hong Kong Institute of Architects. (Eds.),
Architectural blueprint: HKIA 50th anniversary commemorative book (pp.
114-115). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Architects.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2004a). Bank designer of two cities: Luke
Him Sau, in 100 years of Hong Kong architecture: chronicles of early Chinese
architects in Hong Kong. HKIA Journal 4th Quarter 2004(40), 46-51.

388
Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2004b). Pioneer of Chinese modernism:
Robert Fan, in 100 years of Hong Kong architecture: chronicles of early
Chinese architects in Hong Kong. HKIA Journal 4th Quarter 2004(40), 52-57.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2005a). The architect engineer: Yuen Tat
Cho, in 100 years of Hong Kong architecture: chronicles of early Chinese
architects in Hong Kong. HKIA Journal 4th Quarter 2005(44), 52-55.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2005b). Architect of two cultures: Eric
Bryon Cumine, in 100 years of Hong Kong architecture: chronicles of early
Chinese architects in Hong Kong. HKIA Journal 3rd Quarter 2005(43), 44-49.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2005c). The Chinese Professional Pioneer:
Chau and Lee Architects Engineers, in 100 years of Hong Kong architecture:
chronicles of early Chinese architects in Hong Kong. HKIA Journal 3rd
Quarter 2005(43), 39-43.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2005d). The engineer artist: Szeto Wai, in
100 years of Hong Kong architecture: chronicles of early Chinese architects in
Hong Kong. HKIA Journal 4th Quarter 2005(44), 47-51.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2005e). Leaders of professionals: Kwan

Chu Yang Architects Engineers, in 100 years of Hong Kong architecture:
chronicles of early Chinese architects in Hong Kong. HKIA Journal 1st
Quarter 2005(41), 43-46.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2005f). The practitioner and the historian:
Su Gin Djih, in 100 years of Hong Kong architecture: chronicles of early
Chinese architects in Hong Kong. HKIA Journal 1st Quarter 2005(41), 47-51.

Ng, K. C. 吴启聪, & Chu, C. H. 朱卓雄 (2007). Jian wen zhu ji: xiang gang di yi dai
hua ren jian zhu shi de gu shi 建聞築蹟： 香港第一代華人建築師的故事
(Stories of the first generation of Chinese architects in Hong Kong). 香港: 經
濟日報出版社.

P & T, G. (1998). P & T Group: 130 years architecture in Asia Hong Kong: Pace
Publishing Ltd.

Pan, G. X. 潘谷西 (Ed.). (2001). Zhong guo jian zhu shi 中国建筑史 (History of
Chinese architecture). Beijing: Jian zhu gong ye.

389
Peng, C. X. 彭长歆 (2004). Ling nan jian zhu de jing dai hua li cheng yan jiu 岭南建
筑 的 近 代 化 历 程 研 究 （ Research on the modernization of Lingnan
Architecture）. South China University of Technology, Guangzhou.

Peng, K. F. 彭开福 (1993). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Lu shan pian 中国近
代建筑总览.庐山篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Lushan)
(Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu
dian jing xiao.

Pfammatter, U. (2000). The making of the modern architect and engineer: the origins
and development of a scientific and industrially oriented education
(translation from German into English, Madeline Ferretti-Theilig). Basel:
Birkhäuser.

Pryor, E. G. (1983). Housing in Hong Kong Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Purvis, M. (1985). Tall storeys： Palmer and Turner, architects and engineers: the
first 100 years. Hong Kong: Palmer and Turner.

Qian, F. 钱锋, & Wu, J. 伍江 (2008). Zhong guo xian dai jian zhu jiao yu shi, 1920s-
1980s 中国现代建筑教育史 (Education of modern architecture in China:
1920s-1980s). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she

Qing, Ministry of Construction (1734). Qing gong bu gong cheng zuo fa ze li 清工部
工程做法则例 (Structural regualtions for construction of the Qing dynasty).

Riedel, J., & Universität Kiel. Institut für Weltwirtschaft. (1974). The
industrialization of Hong Kong. Tubingen: Mohr.

Rowe, P. G., & Kuan, S. 关晟 (2002). Architectural encounters with essence and form
in modern China. Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: MIT Press.

Rozman, G. (1973). Urban networks in Ching China and Tokugawa Japan Princeton,
N.J.： Princeton University Press.

Rozman, G. (Ed.). (1981). The modernization of China New York Free Press.

Ruan, X. 阮昕 (2002a). Accidental Affinities: American Beaux-Arts in Twentieth-

century Chinese Architectural Education and Practice. Journal of the Society
of Architectural Historians 61(1), 30-47.

390
Ruan, X. 阮 昕 (2002b). Speculation concerning cultural affinities: T. P. Yang's
Beaux-Arts in China. Paper presented at the The international symposium for
the research on China's modern architectural academy in 20th century,
Nanjing.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon.

Shanghai jian zhu shi gong zhi bian wei hui 上海市建筑施工志编委会 (1991). Dong
fang "Bali"： jin dai Shanghai jian zhu shi hua 东方“巴黎”：近代上海建
筑史话 (Paris in the East: the architectural stories of modern Shanghai) (Di 1
ban. ed.). Shanghai: Shanghai wen hua chu ban she: Xin hua shu dian jing
xiao.

Sheehan, B. (2000). Urban identity and urban networks in cosmopolitan cities: banks
and bankers in Tianjin, 1900-1937. In J. Esherick (Ed.), Remaking the Chinese
city: modernity and national identity, 1900-1950 (pp. x, 278). Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press.

Sheehan, B. (2005). Myth and Reality in Chinese Financial Cliques in 1936.

Enterprise & Society, 6(3), 452.

Shen bao 申报 （Shanghai newspaper). (1872). [microform]. Shanghai Shi: Shen bao
she,.

Shi dai jian zhu 时代建筑 (Time + Architecture). (2007). (Vol. 97). Shanghai: Tongji
University Press.

Shi shi xin bao 时事新报 (The China times). [microform].： 1911-1948.

Sit, F. S. V. 薛凤旋 (2001). Xianggang fa zhan di tu ji 香港发展地图集 (Hong

Kong： 150 years, development in maps) (1st ed.). Xianggang: San lian shu
dian (Xianggang) you xian gong si.

Smith, A. H. (1908). China and America to-day: a study of conditions and relations
(New ed.). Edinburgh: Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier.

South China morning post. [microform]. Hong Kong: South China Morning Post.

Su, G. D. 徐敬直 Government project. Hong Kong.

Su, G. D. 徐敬直 Welfare projects G.D. Su A.A./ Hsin Yeih Architects and Associates.
Hong Kong.

391
Sui, Q. X. 眭庆曦 (1995). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Da lian pian 中国近代
建筑总览.大连篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Dalian) (Di 1
ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu dian
jing xiao.

Szeto, W. 司徒惠 (1959). Modern-day role of the Architect: President addresses

Hong Kong Society of Architects. Hong Kong and Far East builder, 14(5),
49-52.

Szeto W. 司徒惠 & partners Architects and Engineers. (1975). Selected works, 1955-
1975. Hong Kong: the Firm.

Szeto, W. 司徒惠 (1980). Reflections. Hong Kong: the author.

Taiwan sheng li gong xue yuan. Jian zhu xi. Jin ri jian zhu yan jiu hui 台湾省立工学
院建筑学今日建筑研究会：Jin ri jian zhu 今日建筑 (Architecture today).
Taibei: Taiwan sheng li gong xue yuan jian zhu xi jin ri jian zhu yan jiu hui.

Tang, X. B. 唐小兵 (1996). Global space and the nationalist discourse of modernity:
the historical thinking of Liang Qichao. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press.

Tong, J. 童寯 (1937). Architecture Chronicle. T'ien Hsia Monthly, 1937(10).

Tong, J. 童寯 (2000). Tong Jun wen ji 童寯文集 (Writings of Tong Jun) (Di 1 ban.
ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Tsang, S. 曾锐生 (2004). A modern history of Hong Kong Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.

Vidotto, M., Castán, S., & Thomson, G. (1997). Alison + Peter Smithson. Barcelona:
Gustavo Gili.

Wah Yan College Magazine Kowloon. (1960). The shield, 1960(8).

Wang, H. Y. 王浩娱 (2002). Zhong guo jin dai jian zhu shi zhi ye zhuang kuan yan
jiu 中 国 近 代 建 筑 师 执 业 状 况 研 究 (Architects in modern China: their
collective characters and their time). University of Southeast, Nanjing.

Wang, H. Y. 王浩娱, & Hui, D. C. K. 许焯权 (2004). Cong gong jiang dao jian zhu
shi: zhong guo jian zhu chuang zuo zhu ti de xian dai hua zhuan bian 从工匠

392
 到建筑师：中国建筑创作主体的现代化转变 (From craftsmen to architects:
the diversification of the profession in modern Chinese architectural history).
In Zhang, F. H. 张复合 (Ed.), Anthology of 2004 international conference on
modern history of Chinese architecture. Beijing: Qing hua da xue chu ban she.

Wang, H. Y. 王浩娱 (2006). 1949 nian hou cong shanghai lai gang de hua ren jian
zhu shi1949 年後從上海來港的華人建築師(Chinese architects coming from
Shanghai to Hong Kong after 1949). In Lee, P. T. (Ed.), to be published.
Hong Kong: The Center of Asian Study, The University of Hong Kong.

Wang, H. Y. 王浩娱 (2007). Lu Qian Shou hou ren xiang gang fang tan lu: zhong
guo jin dai jian zhu shi ge an yan jiu 陆谦受后人香港访谈录:中国近代建筑
师个案研究 (Interviewing Luke Him Sau's descendants in Hong Kong: a case
study of a pioneer modern Chinese architect). Paper presented at the
International Conference on Chinese Arhcitectural History IV.

Wang, J. 王军 (2003). Cheng ji 城记 (The tale of the city) (Beijing di 1 ban. ed.).
Beijing Shi: Sheng huo du shu xin zhi san lian shu dian.

Wang, J. X. 王俊雄 (2002). Guo min zheng fu shi qi nan jing shou du ji hua zhi yan
jiu 国民政府时期南京首都计划之研究 (On the capital plan of Nanking in
the nationalist era of China, 1928-1937). National Cheng Kung University,
Taibei.

Wang, S. R. 王世仁 (1993). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Beijing Pian 中国近
代建筑总览.北京篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Beijing)
(Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu
dian jing xiao.

Westad, O. A. (1993). Cold war and revolution: Soviet-American rivalry and the
origins of the Chinese Civil War, 1944-1946. New York: Columbia University
Press.

Wong, S. L. 黄绍伦 (1988). Emigrant entrepreneurs: Shanghai industrialists in Hong

Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Wong, W. C. 王宏志 (2000). Li shi de chen zhong: cong Xianggang kan Zhongguo da
lu de Xianggang shi lun shu 历史的沉重：从香港看中国大陆的香港史论述
（The burden of history: a Hong Kong perspective of the Mainland discourse
of Hong Kong history）. Xianggang: Oxford Universtiy Press.

393
Wong, W. S. 黄华生 (2003). The effects of building regulations control on the design
of private residential buildings. Unpublished Thesis (Ph D), University of
Hong Kong, 2003., Hong Kong.

Wong, W. S. 黄华生, & Chan, H. W. E. 陈汉云 (1997). Professional practice for

architects in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Pace Publishing Ltd.

Wu, J. 伍江 (1997). Shanghai bai nian jian zhu shi, 1840-1949 上海百年建筑史
(History of Shanghai architecture). Shanghai: Tong ji dai xue chu ban she.

Wu, J. 伍江, & Qian, F. 钱锋 (2003). Huang zuo xing he ta de jian zhu jiao yu si
xiang 黄作燊和他的建筑教育思想 Jorsen Huang and His Teaching Practice
of Modern Architecture in China. In Zhao C. 赵辰 (Ed.), Research on China's
modern architectural academia (pp. 87-97). Beijing: Jian zhu gong ye.

Xiang-gang shang ye hui bao. 香港商业汇报 (1958). Xianggang jian zao ye bai nian
shi 香港建造业百年史(One hundred years of building construction in Hong
Kong). Xianggang: Xianggang gong shang ye hui bao.

Xu, F. P. 徐飞鹏 (1993). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Qingdao pian 中国近
代建筑总览.青岛篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Qingdao)
(Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she: Xin hua shu
dian jing xiao.

Xu, G. M. 徐国懋 (1992). Ba wu zi shu 八五自述 (Autobiography at the age of

eighty five). Shanghai wen shi zi liao xuan ji 上海文史資料選輯 (Selected
materials on culture and history of Shanghai), 72(Dec. ).

Xu, S. B. 徐 苏 斌 (2005). 中 国 城 市 • 建 筑 的 近 代 化 与 日 本 (Japan and the

modernization of Chinese urban and architecture). Tokyo University Tokyo.

Xu, X. Q. 徐小群 (2001). Chinese professionals and the republican state: the rise of
professional associations in Shanghai, 1912-1937. Cambridge, UK; New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, B. D. 杨秉德 (1993). Zhongguo jin dai cheng shi yu jian zhu (1840-1949) 中国
近代城市与建筑 (The history of modern Chinese cities and architecture).

Yang, B. D. 杨秉德 (1998). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu shi fen qi wen ti yan jiu 中国
近代建筑史分期问题研究 (A study on the periodization of modern Chinese
architectural history). Jian zhu xue bao 建筑学报 (Architectural journal),
1998(no.9).

394
Yang, S. L. 杨嵩林 (1993). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Chongqing pian 中国
近 代 建 筑 总 览 . 重 庆 篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in
Chongqing) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she:
Xin hua shu dian jing xiao.

Yang, T. B. 杨廷宝, Han, D. Q. 韩冬青, & Zhang, T. 张彤 (2001). Yang Tingbao jian
zhu she ji zuo pin xuan 杨廷宝建筑设计作品选 (Selected architectural works
of Yang Tingbao) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban
she.

Yang, T. B. 杨廷宝, Wang, J. G.王建国, Chen, Z. Q. 陈宗钦, & Gao, J. 高晶 (1997).

Yang Tingbao jian zhu lun shu yu zuo pin xuan ji 杨廷宝建筑论述与作品选
集 (Selected architectural writings & works of Yang Tingbo) (Di 1 ban. ed.).
Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Yang, T. B. 杨廷宝, Zhao, S. Y. 赵思毅, & Zhang, T. 张彤 (2001). Yang Tingbao

mei shu zuo pin xuan 杨廷宝美术作品选 (Selected artistic pieces of Yang
Tingbao) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Yang, Y. S. 杨永生 (2003). Jian zhu bai jia hui yi lu xu bian 建筑百家回忆录续编
(Various biographical records on Chinese architects) (Di 1 ban. ed.). Beijing
Shi: Zhi shi chan quan chu ban she: Zhongguo shui li shui dian chu ban she.

Yang, Y. S. 杨永生 (2002). Zhongguo si dai jian zhu shi 中国四代建筑师 (Four
generations of Chinese architects). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gongye chu
ban she.

Yeung, W. Y. H. 杨颖宇 (1999). Guangzhou, 1800-1925: the urban evolution of a

Chinese provincial capital University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Yeung, W. Y. H. 杨颖宇 (2007). From fort to blocks: the development of North Point,
Hong Kong, 1841-1980. Paper presented at the The 2nd annual conference of
the Asian Studies Association of Hong Kong.

Youngson, A. J. (1982). Hong Kong: economic growth and policy. Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.

Zeng, J. 曾坚 (1993). Zhongguo jian zhu shi de fen dai wen ti ji qi ta 中国建筑史的
分代问题及其它 (on the periodization of Chinese architectural history and
other issues). Jian zhu shi 建筑师 (Architect), no.67.

395
Zhang, B. 张镈 (1994). Wo de jian zhu chuang zuo dao lu 我的建筑创作道路 (My
career as an architect). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Zhang, R. W. 张润武 (1996). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu zong lan. Ji nan pian 中国近
代建筑总览.济南篇 (Overview of modern Chinese architecture in Jinan) (Di
1 ban. ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Zhang, Y. X. 张英绪 (1910). Jian zhu xin fa 建筑新法 （Building construction）.

Shanghai: Printing Commercial Press, Ltd.

Zhao, C. 赵辰 (2000a). Cong ‘jian zhu zhi shu’ dao ‘wen hua zhi he’从建筑之树到文
化之河 (From ‘the tree of architecture’ to ‘river of culture’). Jian zhu
shi 建筑师 (Architect), 93, 92-95.

Zhao, C. 赵辰 (2000b). Ming zu zhu yi yu gu dian zhu yi: Liang Si Cheng jian zhu li
lun ti xi de mao dun xing yu bei ju xing zhi feng xi“民族主义”与“古典主
义”：梁思成建筑理论体系的矛盾性与悲剧性之分析 (Nationalism and
Classicism: An analysis on the contradiction and tragedy of the theoretical
system of Liang Si Cheng). In Zhang, F. H. 张复合 (Ed.), Antholofy of 2000
International Conference on modern history of Chinese architecture (pp. 77-
86). Beijing: Qing hua da xue chu ban she.

Zhao, C. 赵辰 (2005). Zuo wei zhong guo jian zhu xue shu xian xing zhe de Lin Hui
Yin 作为中国建筑学术先行者的林徽因 (Lin Hui Yin: a pioneer of China's
modern architectural academia). In Jia, J. 贾珺 (Ed.), Jian zhu shi 建筑史
(Architectural history). Beijing: Qing hua da xue chu ban she.

Zhao, C. 赵辰, & Tong, W. 童文 (2003). Tong Jun yu Nanjing de jian zhu xue shu shi
ye 童寯与南京的建筑学术事业 (Tong Jun and the architecutural education in
Nanjing). In Zhao, C. 赵辰 (Ed.), Research on China's modern architectural
academia (pp. 87-97). Beijing: Jian zhu gong ye.

Zhao, G. W. 赵国文 (1987). Zhongguo jin dai jian zhu shi de fen qi wen ti 中国近代
建筑史的分期问题 (On the periodization of modern Chinese architectural
history). Hua zhong jian zhu 华 中 建 筑 (Huazhong architecture China),
1987( no.2).

Zhao, S. 赵深 (1932). Fa kan ci 发刊词 (Initial forward the journal). Zhong guo Jian
zhu 中国建筑 (Chinese Architect)(initial issue).

396
Zheng, S. L. 郑时龄 (1999). Shanghai jin dai jian zhu feng ge 上海近代建筑风格
(The evolution of Shanghai architecture in modern times) (Di 1 ban. ed.).
Shanghai: Shanghai jiao yu chu ban she.

Zhu, G. Y. 朱光亚 (2001). Xian dai zhong guo jian zhu fa zhan gai shu 现代中国建
筑 发 展 概 述 (A review on the contemporary architectural development in
China). In Pan, G. X. 潘谷西 (Ed.), Zhong guo jian zhu shi 中国建筑史
(History of Chinese architecture). Beijing: Jian zhu gong ye.

Zhu, Q. Q. 朱启钤, Liang, Q. X. 梁启雄, Liu, D. Z.刘敦桢, & Yang, Y. S. 杨永生

(2005). Zhe jiang lu 哲匠錄 (Who's who in Chinese architecture) (Di 1 ban.
ed.). Beijing: Zhongguo jian zhu gong ye chu ban she.

Zhu, Z. T. 朱振通 (2006). Tong Jun jian zhu shi jian li chen tan jiu (1931-1949) 童寯
建筑实践历程探究 (Research on Tong Jun's course of architectural practive
from 1931 to 1949). Southeast University, Nanjing.

Zou, X. 邹勋 (2007). Wen hua jing zheng de kong jian xiang zheng: wai tan zhong
guo ying hang da lou li shi jie du (文化竞争的空间象征--外滩中国银行大楼
历史解读) Urban spatial symbol of cultural contest: a case study of the Bank
of China building on the Bund. Tongji University, Shanghai.

397