Hong Kong Central-Mid-Levels Walkway

01. Soho, in Hong Kong, is characterised by a high density built environment planned along steep streets that would appear to be difficult to circulate. Nevertheless, it has survived as an area rich in eateries and street front activity at the cross streets (which are level), meaning that the primary circulatory means have proven to be more challenging given their gradient. The net effect of this is that the cross streets appear to be more densely populated, and the primary streets rather sparse in activity.

02. The incorporation of travellators have improved circulation, demonstrated by the numbers of people who use it to traverse up and through to the cross streets of Soho. It is a physical imposition into the urban environment that seems to be unaffected by the buildings around it – rather, it is an insertion that physically replicates what is the open space beneath, yet provides an ease of motion for the pedestrian.

03. As one can appreciate in the humid climate of Hong Kong, physical assertion by climbing steps is mitigated by the travellator, with the easier option of downward circulation being catered for by steps.

04. Despite its extensive usage, there are limitations. Whilst a public space, it has particularly explicit rules of use, manifest in its operating hours and restrictions of appropriation, which has more to do with movement (do not walk against the flow of traffic, do not obstruct, do not play, do not lean out).

05. The travellator, as a skyway structure creates a shaded opportunity that is reasonably taken care of as a social space, with limited planting and steps to take up the level differences. These steps are used as seats for migrant workers to relax and socially interact at the weekend.

06. This group of Filipino maids congregate under the skyway travellator every weekend, along with many hundereds more, as it is one of the few open spaces that allow for such communal activity under shade other than the air conditioned environs of the retail mall and arcade. In conversation with the maids, I asked why they didn’t congregate within the mall environments. Their response was that they did ‘not feel comfortable’; were ‘not able to bring food inside [the retail environments]’ or lepak kaki (sit around in an idol fashion). In and above the explicit rules that govern the usage of semi-public domains of the retail environments, there also appears to be implicit social exclusions that negates the opportunity of the migrant workers to use the internal spaces; pushing them to the perimeters whereby the public arena allows them to congregate, set up camp and interact within the social clusters.

07. The travellator has become such an intrinsic part of the pedestrian movement across multiple levels that new developments have attached themselves to it – presumably in order to capture the passing footfall for trade and provide an ease of movement.

08. Moving up through this zone, I was amazed to find another gatherings of migrant workers, though this time setting camp within the transitional space that forms an overhead link to a busy highway. One side is lined with retail units, many of which were closed at the time. The central space between the shop façades and the columns was free for the regular passage of pedestrians. The columns to the external wall that forms the enclosure demarcated a space that has been appropriated by the migrant workers as a resting / social area at the weekends. There appropriation does not disrupt the flow of pedestrians traversing through the central space. The space within this zone is then further physically demarcated by the individual or social groupings. In the case of the former, setting clothing on the ground demarcate their zone. In the latter, cardboard mats demarcate a territory, from which the social grouping will sit. Further protective temporary boundaries are erected in the form of umbrellas that presumably provide an element of privacy, a screen to dust and a territorial boundary from which the individual groups feel sheltered from either other groupings or passers-by.

09. Following through this transitional thoroughfare, I came across a further space that was again filled with migrant workers. The space was narrower, and this time open air, all bar a roof covering and a glazed handrail. This appeared to be less populated than the previous.

10. Moving further in again, I came across a space that wasn’t inhabited at all, but still appeared to retain the same quantum of footfall. The assumption may be drawn that the external environment may have been harsher. There was a higher audible level of noise from the streets that could make casual conversation difficult. There was also a greater amount of exposure in terms of daylight penetration due to the narrower width of concourse. The narrower width would also presumably reduce the space that could be taken for relaxation by the migrant workers given the need to keep a free passage for passing footfall. Should the migrant workers have occupied the space as they felt accustomed to in the vicinity, they may have compromised the ease of passage for others, creating possible tensions and the perception that they would have been territorially taking ownership of the space. On the other hand, their respectful retention of the free passageway may have restricted their own appropriation of the space, forcing them to adopt different social techniques to engage with each other in public. When compared with the previous concourse and its column position, the patterns would suggest that the physical structure that is highly legible demarcates an acceptable space to one side of it that can be used by the migrant workers. The absence of the structure in the other concourse goes unchallenged and so remains simply as a concourse for pedestrians.