Industrial and cultural heritage of the Ma On Shan Iron Mine landscape and the making of industrious Hong Kong

Abstract

Ma On Shan (MOS, literally ‘Saddle Hill’) is an extension of Shatin new town in Hong Kong. This area embeds the site of the now closed MOS Iron Mine and several related settlements at the Peak, Mid‐Level and Pier Districts. The history of the MOS Iron Mine landscape sheds important light on the city's post‐WWII development. The MOS is a typical historic urban landscape, a product of transnational urbanism, a joint‐venture of local and Japanese investments made possible by the Cold War, and the retreat of faith‐based organisations and poor refugees fleeing Chinese rule after 1949 practicing mutual support in a laissez‐faire colonial city. The Japanese trained miners, explosive operators, mechanics and construction workers of the MOS Iron Mine contributed to infrastructure developments of modern Hong Kong. The associated settlements also epitomise the industrious spirit of Hong Kongers in the face of international and regional political volatilities, absence of government support, material shortage and economic hardship. Embedded in the MOS Iron Mine landscape is not only valuable industrial heritage bequeathed by multi‐scalar transnational socio‐economic and political developments but also the cultural heritage of reciprocity and mutuality among community members in local economic development, knowledge with continuing relevance for city‐building today.

Digital Footprint as a Public Participatory Tool: Identifying and Assessing Industrial Heritage Landscape through User-Generated Content on Social Media

“…With regard to traditional approaches to the protection of industrial heritage, a material-based process for immovable cultural relics is often implemented, with the objective of focusing on the protection of historic constructions, buildings, and monuments [1]. In the absence of the consideration of the needs and interests of the public, it is difficult for industrial heritage sites to achieve long-term vitality or be integrated into current urban development activities [6,10]. This research has positive implications for establishing an efficient public participation platform and mechanism.…”

“…These international policies recommend that industrial heritage management approaches cannot simply adopt a static or isolated perspective of "frozen" heritage properties but need to take into consideration heritage function, time, and cultural continuation integrated into current post-industrial social needs and future city visions [9]. However, current industrial heritage protection often results in a heated discussion about the adaptive reuse of building materials and structures, but lacks sufficient consideration of socio-cultural needs and values [6,10]. Tangible heritage manifestations and characteristics can be adaptively maintained and preserved while related intangible manifestations also need to be associated with local communities and daily activities to enhance symbolic meanings and place significance.…”

“…The management approach of industrial heritage needs to be furthered by including reciprocity and mutuality among the public in the sustainable evolvement of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage manifestations and place identity. Therefore, the historic urban landscape of industrial heritage (hereafter, industrial heritage landscape) could adopt an operational approach to more inclusively managing industrial heritage protection and adaptive reuse [10]. The identification, assessment, and planning of industrial heritage landscape a ributes and values have become technical steps for local heritage managers and professionals [11].…”