Europe vs Hong Kong partnership agreements: reversing trends

Abstract

The comparison between EU cohesion policies on public works as a common good and Hong Kong’s policies on public-private participation to preserve and revitalise architectural heritage highlights cultural and operational differences. While Europe often adopts an inclusive approach, involving the communities mainly in the valorisation of public spaces, Hong Kong implements models more focused on public-private partnership to preserve the public real estate. Thus, the adaptive reuse of public works at the two different scales transforms public works into catalysts of prosperity for the community by preserving historical memory, but has a different impact on shared value generation, social cohesion enhancement, sustainable development promotion, and collective identity valorisation. The contribution analyses the two models (centrifugal and centripetal), focusing on objectives and implementation tools.