Content uploaded by Ye Zhang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ye Zhang on Sep 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
Exploring an Alternative to Bridging Hong Kong and Shenzhen:
Lok Ma Chau Loop as New Urban Commons
Ching Yan Lam, Ye Zhang
Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore
Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, 4
Architecture Drive, Singapore 117566
E-mail of corresponding author: akizy@nus.edu.sg
ABSTRACT
Standing on the belief of effective cross-border interactions, and expanded upon the recent collaboration
opportunity of Lok Ma Chau Innovation Hub, this paper proposes an alternative to bridging Hong Kong and
Shenzhen through urban commons, and challenges the existing rigid typology of border control points as a
space of separation. The proposal taps into the potentials of e-waste recycling by turning the trash into a treasure
shared by the innovation community, and envisions the innovation hub as new urban commons. Adopting the
framework of co-operative as the set of rules to manage the urban commons, the proposed innovation hub
engages four critical players - academia, industry, government, and media-based and culture-based public, and
responds to five main needs of New Technology-Based Firms - innovative technology, physical space for
activities, funding to support research and production, market evaluation for technical and business
improvement, and management resources. It serves to catalyze start-up formation and incubate high-tech
enterprises, and acts as a testing ground for nascent technologies and innovative products. This paper explores
an alternative to building an open community beyond territorial demarcation and to softening Hong Kong-
Shenzhen border, thereby contributing to social cohesion.
Keywords: border-crossing, co-operative, cross-border collaboration, open community, urban commons.
1. INTRODUCTION
When Hong Kong was handed over to China sovereignty in 1997, the constitutional principle of “one
country, two systems” was formulated. The agreement is that, upon reunification, the established
economic and administrative systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years, with a high
degree of autonomy. Thus, although being an integral part of China, Hong Kong is permitted to
function as a special entity in many circumstances.
However, what will happen after 2047, when the constitutions of ‘one country, two system’ comes to
the end, has never been publicly stated (Cheung and Cheung 2017). The negative feeling brought
about by uncertainties has been worsened by the fact that with the rise of many well-developed
mainland cities, Hong Kong is gradually losing its uniqueness and prosperity. This further generates
the fear that Hong Kong would have little say in the “Year 2047 Problem” (Awai, 2016), and little
control over its future.
This paper stands as a critique on the widespread pessimism and passive attitude towards the future
of Hong Kong. Rather, we argue that this uncertainty should be responded with a positive attitude to
build up trust for the coming future. Through cross-border negotiations and interactions, effective
collaborations at various fields and levels can be established and implemented between Hong Kong
and Shenzhen, thereby bridging the two sides and soothe the tension.
With three more decades of high-degree autonomy to pro-act to the “Year 2047 problem”, how Hong
Kong can grasp the collaborative opportunities and leverage “one country, two systems” framework
is the question that this article attempts to answer.
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
2. ORGANISATION
This paper will firstly present the background of tense Hong Kong-Mainland China relations, and
then discuss how an alternative approach to promoting effective two-way interactions and
collaborations at multiple levels is possible. Subsequently, cross-border collaboration will be
elaborated with a hypothetical example of joint Innovation and Technology Hub in Lok Ma Chau
Loop, an island – located on Hong Kong-Shenzhen border – formerly owned by Shenzhen and now
under Hong Kong’s administration. Based on this case example, we argue that the alternative
approach proposed in this paper sees cross-border collaboration as a valuable opportunity for
healing the divided society, beyond solely economic agenda.
3. TENSE RELATIONS BETWEEN HONG KONG AND MAINLAND CHINA
The surging economy of Mainland China has resulted in Hong Kong’s awkward position that,
although it still plays a significant role in the regional and global economy, it is no longer the “jewel”.
Hong Kong is losing the uniqueness and advantages it once held pride in, and is no longer the
prominent city it used to be. The decline has led to insecurity and fear, spurring Hong Kong’s society-
wide anxiety and hostility towards Mainland China.
Due to the rapid economic development between 1960s and 1990s, Hong Kong has risen to
prominence as one of the Four Asian Tiger economies (Steinbock, 2017). At the time of the handover
in 1997, Hong Kong’s economy was equivalent to one-fifth of mainland’s total (The Economist, 2017).
However, after the handover, especially in recent years, there have been signs showing Hong Kong’s
economy being less competitive. Its GDP is now less than 3% of the mainland’s total (The Economist,
2017). The four pillar industries in Hong Kong – financial services, trading and logistics, tourism, and
producer and professional services (HKSAR Census and Statistics Department, 2018) – are facing
stiff competitions from mainland cities.
In comparison to the rapid development in Mainland China, the once-vibrant Hong Kong’s economy
has been stagnant over the past two decades. In his book of A system apart, Simon Cartledge (2017),
the former editor-in-chief of the Economist Intelligence Unit Asia, argues that “Hong Kong is stuck,
with remarkably little change to show for the last two decades… Despite living on the doorstep of the
world’s most dynamic economy of the last two decades, and despite having played a role in that
economy’s initial opening and development, Hong Kong has gone sideways.”
Specifically, Hong Kong has been overtaken by its neighbor, Shenzhen – which was a small fishing
village three decades ago, but is now a technology-heavy megacity – in economic size in 2018 (Sun,
2018). Due to the “one country, two systems” framework, a border is drawn between Hong Kong and
Shenzhen. The hard border, as territorial demarcation, separates the land into two seemingly
different entities, and is prone to be read as a statement of separation than connection. The rigid act
of border-crossing – entering the main hall, queuing for identity check, and exiting for transport – is
not conducive to bridge the two sides. Rather, to a certain extent, it hinders effective interactions,
exacerbates gap and worsens identity crisis in Hong Kong.
In addition to the border division, a series of social conflicts also emerge as a result of the decline of
Hong Kong’s economy and the competition between the two sides. For instance, the influx of parallel
traders and tourists – a large number of them from Shenzhen – into Hong Kong has sparked
discontent in Hong Kong society, due to social disruptions in non-tourist destinations like
neighborhoods, and occupation of public resources and amenities. This is because the visitors see
Hong Kong as little more than a supermarket with a large variety of quality goods, and they often
shop in residential districts, which were formally quiet and intimate but now have been affected and
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
disrupted. The large number of mainland parallel traders and extensive demands by mainland
customers sometimes result in shortage of daily essentials like infant formula, which has sparked
discontent and anger among Hong Kong people. Some mainland visitors see Hong Kong as a place
for inexpensive recreation. Public facilities, such as public swimming pools and public camping sites
at beaches, are popular among mainland visitors (Cheng, 2014). Moreover, the influx has also put
tremendous stress on public transport and facilities.
The gap between the two sides is further exacerbated by the lack of effective interactions. There are
hardly opportunities for people to come together. As a result, prejudices can easily arise when there
aren’t sufficient interactions to form mutual understandings. In sum, this is a stark reflection of
Mainland China’s surging economy, and that the glorious prosperity Hong Kong once held is in the
past.
4. POTENTIAL FOR AN ALTERNATIVE: HONG KONG-SHENZHEN INNOVATION AND
TECHNOLOGY HUB
Shenzhen Special Economic Zone was set up in 1980 as the first special economic zone primarily
due to its adjacency to Hong Kong. Thanks to the collaboration and economic exchange with Hong
Kong, within three decades, Shenzhen has transformed itself from a small village into a megacity
standing out at the global stage. It is now the fourth largest city in China (Hinsbergh, 2018). As a
high-tech empire, Shenzhen is declared to be the best place in the world for hardware innovators to
be (The Economist, 2014).
However, in contrast, on Hong Kong side, lots of locals see the cross-border collaborations and
adaption of Hong Kong experience and model in Shenzhen as a future threat – a way for Shenzhen
to replace Hong Kong as a strategic city, and to diminish the importance of Hong Kong. In their book
of Border ecologies, Bolchover and Hasdell (2017) argue that “conceptually if Hong Kong’s special
status can simply be re-created and redeployed, it…becomes just one of many special types of zone
that facilitate the Mainland’s future transformation and global emergence… This process strategically
shifts focus away from the open question of what will happen in 2047 and the political quandary of
Hong Kong SAR, because by then it simply won’t matter.”
As opposed to the pessimistic attitude, this paper looks into the alternative of active collaborations,
through which paving the way for effective two-way interactions and healing the divided society.
There have been many cross-border collaborations between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. For
example, Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone co-opts Hong
Kong’s regulatory systems and legal frameworks, through approaches like low tax rates and
supporting the establishment of Hong Kong arbitration agencies’ affiliated ones, to attract foreign
investments (Winston & Strawn LLP, 2012; Hung, 2017). However, these collaborations are limited
to certain groups or activities, and do not prioritize on promoting effective interactions among people
from two sides; social agenda of bridging the two sides is not fully addressed.
The proposal presented in this paper is built upon a recent collaboration opportunity of Hong Kong-
Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park in Lok Ma Chau Loop. It argues that by bringing this new
cross-border collaboration to the next level, an open community beyond the territorial demarcation
can be created through developing urban commons. As shown in Figure 1, Lok Ma Chau Loop is a
borderland between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, whose ownership had been disputed due to the
straightening of Shenzhen River in 1997. Both sides came to an agreement in 2017 that the loop
officially belongs to Hong Kong, but also signed a deal to jointly develop the site into Hong Kong-
Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park (Siu, Zhao and Cheung, 2017). This 87-hectare
innovation hub is envisioned as the largest ever innovation and technology platform in Hong Kong,
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
providing facilities for Research and Development (R&D) and related educational, cultural and
creative activities. In other words, the hub is anticipated to serve as a key base of collaboration in
scientific research (Ko, 2017). An urban design proposal of Lok Ma Chau Loop is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Location of Lok Ma Chau Loop
Source: Google Earth, 2018
Figure 2. Design proposal of Lok Ma Chau Loop
Source: ARUP, n.d
The strategic location of Lok Ma Chau Loop on the Hong Kong-Shenzhen China border makes this
collaboration a valuable opportunity and a physical linkage to reconcile tensions between the two
sides, beyond solely economic agenda. It would be a missed opportunity not to address the problem
of divided society. Collaboration in scientific research is, to a large extent, limited to interactions
within research groups and high-tech enterprises; the general public can hardly take part in. Lok Ma
Chau Loop would then become a site for a collection of research and business buildings and
activities, not responding to the unique site context and the larger social context. A vibrant innovation
community consists of individuals and groups from various professions; it is open, inclusive and
diverse. The public should be engaged for effective interactions at multiple levels to be promoted.
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
5. ALTERNATIVE TO LOK MA CHAU LOOP: OPEN COMMUNITY, SMOOTH BOUNDARY AND
NEW IDENTITY
This paper proposes an alternative that sees Lok Ma Chau Loop Innovation Hub as urban commons,
through which co-operative collaborations for enterprise incubation and leisure experience can be
achieved and an open community beyond territorial demarcation developed. It also sees the
innovation hub as an opportunity to redefine border-crossing infrastructure for soft boundary and
smooth transition. The proposal firstly highlights e-waste as an opportunity and a potential shared
resource for urban commons, then discuss how the innovation hub can be organized and operated
as urban commons, and followed by how it is able to transform border-crossing experience.
5.1 Trash to treasure: e-waste recycling and high-tech industry
One of the differences within the “one country, two systems” framework is in the import of e-waste.
Hong Kong permits licensed import of e-waste, while Mainland China bans e-waste imports.
However, e-waste could easily find its way through Hong Kong–Mainland China border and end up
within the mainland territory (Powell, 2013). Due to this legal loophole within the framework (Karacs
2016), Hong Kong has been a key node in the international transshipment of e-waste. According to
the Basel Action Network (BAN), it is estimated by Hong Kong authorities that 50-100 containers
(around 25 tonnes each) of e-waste enter the port of Hong Kong each day (Puckett, 2010; DSV,
n.d.). However, since 2013, Mainland China has been conducting the Operation Green Fence – a
crackdown on contaminated important wastes and recyclables. Imports that did not meet the criteria
of 1.5% allowable impurity would be rejected at the border (Bolchover & Hasdell, 2017). This results
in the accumulation of e-waste within Hong Kong’s borderland, and thus posing lots of threat to Hong
Kong.
Due to the crackdown and profitable recycling industry, e-waste processing has begun to take place
in the New Territories in Hong Kong, not far away from the border. Estimated by Hong Kong
authorities, there are around 150 open-air waste collection points, mainly in New Territories (The
Government of HKSAR, 2017). However, the processing mostly takes place illegally behind tall walls
in small isolated plots. The remaining hazardous waste is dumped in a field, to reach Hong Kong’s
landfill sites, or to be exported to another country (Fair Planet, 2018). In this way, heavily toxic metals
can leak into ground and contaminate soil and underground water, leading to health and
environmental problems. According to Green Peace (2005), the lead content in soil in Fanling, New
Territories, is five to ten times higher than the natural level.
However, far from being useless trash, e-waste is indeed a rich mine for precious metals and an
abundant source for recycled materials. It contains much higher concentration of precious metals
than an equivalent weight of ore. One tonne of iPhones would produce 300 times more gold and 6.5
times more silver than a tonne of respective ores (Nogrady, 2016). According to the report Global E-
waste Monitor 2017, US$62 billion worth of valuable metals and plastics were thrown away in 2016.
With an estimation of 617,000 tonnes of e-waste arrived in and generated within Hong Kong annually,
e-waste recycling industry would be a lucrative industry – that is a US$1.31 billion opportunity.
Taking recycled gold as an example, a hypothetical estimation of 93 tonnes of gold could be extracted
annually from the estimated 617,000 tonnes of e-waste, which is more than one fifth of mainland
China’s annual gold production (429.4 tonnes), who is the world’s largest gold production country.
This could put Hong Kong in the 12th position in the world ranking, based on gold mine production
volumes in 2018 (World Gold Council, 2019).
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
The potentials of e-waste can be captured by turning the problem into an opportunity of recycled
material production and precious metal extraction. The proposal taps into the issue of foreign e-waste
in Hong Kong, and sees it as a potential for recycling and manufacturing industry, and a good
opportunity for collaboration and cooperation between the two sides for innovation and technology
development.
5.2 Innovation hub as new urban commons: open community to bridge two sides
In this proposal, the innovation hub is seen as an opportunity to soothe the tense relations, to bridge
the two sides and to heal the divided society, by building an open community beyond territorial
demarcation through urban commons and with economic forces.
5.2.1 Vision of innovation hub: new urban commons
The commons can be broadly referred to as the shared resources accessible to and managed by all
members within a community. In Kip et al.’s (2015) conceptualization of the urban commons, there
are three significant elements – the resources collectively owned, shared and managed by a
community, members of the community, and a set of rules and/or norms that govern the usage of
resources and the process of commoning. In her book Governing the commons, Elinor Ostrom
(1990) argued that the commons requires a set of management rules. The commons is, thus, a set
of social relations which are constantly evolving under the influence of multiple stakeholders. These
shared resources are able to shape interactions within the community.
In this proposed innovation hub, the resources shared by the innovation community for research,
prototyping and enterprise incubation are the recycled materials produced from e-waste recycling,
and information and services within the network. The set of rules, as shown in Figure 3, relates to
the management of these shared resources and the functioning of the innovation hub. The proposal
adopts the business model of co-operative – which, as defined by International Co-operative Alliance
(n.d.), is a “people-centered enterprise jointly owned and democratically controlled by and for their
members to realize their common socio-economic needs and aspirations.” The proposed hub
functions as a government-initiated cooperative, with a collection of research groups, start-ups,
incubated enterprises and other supporting groups. The co-operative brand is built upon efforts of all
individuals and incubated enterprises within the innovation community. Overall profits are shared
across the community in the form of shares – community shares for members in the innovation
community, staff shares for those who are not directly involved in Research and Development (R&D),
and supporter shares for investors and feedback providers.
The trash of e-waste can be turned into a treasure collectively owned by the community, serving as
a foundation for innovation and technology development, and high-tech manufacturing. E-waste can
come from three main sources – from Mainland China and foreign countries, and within Hong Kong
– making it a good opportunity for collaboration and cooperation between the two sides, and
contributing to the development of the bigger region. Part of the recycled materials can be kept within
the site, while the rest can be exported out and become a source of substantial funding. Unneeded
prototypes will be recycled within the loop. E-waste recycling plant is conventionally deemed heavy
and pollutive, but this can be mitigated through architectural interventions to become green facilities.
The innovation hub serves to catalyse start-up formation and incubate high-tech enterprises.
Clustering like-minded people and building an interactive platform, research, idea generation and
product development are closely knitted. Start-ups can seek support from the community network,
have access to smart factory to prototype and to develop efficient production lines, and test and
evaluate products within the innovation hub. With the abundance of connections and resources, the
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
innovation hub, as a collective co-operative, could be a good media platform and a competitive brand
to introduce, advertise and diffuse innovative products.
After successful incubation, high-tech firms would relocate their production lines to other suitable
places, such as the new proposed development areas in the New Territories in Hong Kong, and
mainland cities, in order to expand the scale and influence. Recycled materials could be supplied at
lower price for production. Part of their shares go to the co-operative. These firms can still tap into
the innovation hub’s network and resources for research, product development, technical support
and publicity.
Figure 3. Proposed innovation hub as new urban commons
Source: Author
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
5.2.2 Organization of innovation hub: Four critical players
The organizational structure of the proposed innovation hub (Figure 3) engages four critical players.
In this proposal, quadruple helix model of innovation is adopted. This is a set of interactions for
knowledge production and innovation, suggested by Elias G. Carayannis and David F.J. Campbell
(2009) in ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’. The four components are academia, industry, government,
and media-based and culture-based public. Universities and research centers engage in research.
Research results are transferred to industry to produce innovative products. Policies are made by
the government to promote Research and Development (R&D), and to regulate the industry and
market. The civil society is engaged so that demands and needs can be matched and met.
The proposed innovation hub in this paper is a government-initiated project collaborated by Hong
Kong and Shenzhen. The strong support from both governments is a great advantage to promote
effective cross-border interactions and collaborations at various levels, such as in research arena,
business activities and public engagement. Research achievements by universities and research
centers in Hong Kong, and Shenzhen’s high-tech expertise can be captured and tapped into. The
innovation hub can be curated as an interactive experience space and a playful education center to
attract visitors. As Lok Ma Chau Loop is located on the Hong Kong-Shenzhen border, the large
number of people who cross the border can be engaged too.
5.2.3 Operation of Innovation hub: five main needs
The proposed innovation hub is conceptualized to be an open community within the two lines of Hong
Kong-Shenzhen border, thus becoming a space beyond territorial demarcation, where people from
both sides can come together to experience nascent technologies and to interact in collaborations.
It becomes a space with comprehensive programs – a place to live, work and play. Tapping into the
trend of Industry 4.0 – which marries physical production with smart digital technologies, such as
additive manufacturing and big data – the innovation hub is a high-tech dreamland and sci-fi world
in reality. The structure revolves around five main needs of New Technology-Based Firms (NTBFs).
Nishizawa (2011) identified five needs of NTBFs in his paper From Triple-helix model to eco-system
building model – innovative technology, physical space for activities, funding to support research and
production, market evaluation for technical and business improvement, and management resources.
Due to the inherent high risks and uncertainties in research and technological innovation, policies
should be introduced to lessen these risks to facilitate the formation of NTBFs and marketing of
innovative products.
These could be responded with research groups and high-tech enterprises from both sides, Lok Ma
Chau Loop as the physical space, funds generated from e-waste recycling industry and other
sources, data and feedback collected from visitors, and management services provided by the
innovation hub.
Hong Kong’s research achievements and Shenzhen’s high-tech expertise can be tapped into and
utilized. Quality physical infrastructure and well-established policies can effectively attract research
groups and enterprises to set up their branches and offices in Lok Ma Chau Loop. The e-waste
recycling within the site provides abundant raw materials for prototyping and small-scale production.
High-tech production facilities – such as large-scale 3D printers, real-time testing bed for prototypes,
and modular manufacturing machine – can be powerful tools for researchers and entrepreneurs in
product development. The proposed innovation hub also aims to attract talented individuals from
various professions such as engineering, design and business. The diverse network built by the
community can serve as an interactive platform for support seeking and cross-border, cross-
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
profession collaborations, upon which building an inclusive community. The design and management
of the innovation hub should help to promote interactions and casual encounters.
In this conceptualization of co-operative, funding comes from three main sources – profits from e-
waste recycling, government funding, and established firms incubated by the hub. The ratio can vary
at different phases. The profits gained from e-waste recycling can be a substantial support for
innovation and management. And, more reliance on government funding in the initial phase, while
more contribution by established firms as the innovation hub develops. With substantial funding to
support, business risks and uncertainties are largely transferred to and bear by the overarching body
of Lok Ma Chau Innovation Hub, aiding the incubation and growth of start-ups.
The entire innovation hub can be seen as a testing ground for nascent technologies and innovative
products to be tested by visitors. An average of 70,000 people pass through Huang’gang border
control point (Shenzhen) and Lok Ma Chau border control point (Hong Kong) every day (Liang, 2017).
This human flow can be captured through careful curation of circulation system and design of
interactive experience space. The experience does not have to be limited within enclosed exhibition
halls. For example, cutting-edge transport technologies can be experienced and evaluated in the
circulation system. Service-oriented products can be tested in café and restaurants. E-waste
recycling infrastructure and smart factory can also be educational experience space, where visitors
learn about recycling knowledge and production technologies. These attractions collectively build up
a high-tech theme park for visitors and investors. Data and feedback collected contribute to product
improvement and market evaluation, ensuring the demands and needs of the public been matched
and met.
In this paper, the proposed innovation hub is conceptualized as urban commons to create
opportunities for people from Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other mainland cities to come together and
interact in innovation and technology collaborations, allowing the duality to manifest and negotiate.
With shared resources and the co-operative framework to manage the commons, an open innovation
community is formed, cultivating a new identity beyond territorial demarcation. The innovation hub
is, thus, a socio-economic alternative to bridging Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
5.3 Interactive border control point: challenging existing typology
In addition, this proposal also attempts to redefine and transform border-crossing infrastructure in
order to soften the hard border and territorial demarcation, and to pro-act to the coming 2047 when
Hong Kong-Mainland China border is likely to be removed.
Although Hong Kong is a part of China, due to the hard border with limited access through control
points, they seem to be two distinct sovereignties. As discussed previously, this is not conducive for
cross-border interaction and collaboration, and can exacerbate the gap between two sides. Since
what will happen after 2047 has never been publicly stated, the assumption that Hong Kong-
Mainland China border would be removed after 2047 can be made. With less than three decades of
pro-act, we argue that the new innovation hub described above potentially gives rise to a new
typology of border control point that can smoothen the transition, making it a space of connection,
rather than a space of separation.
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
Figure 4. Site context of Lok Ma Chau Loop
Source: Author
Lok Ma Chau Loop is located on the border between Hong Kong and Shenzhen (Figure 4). It is
opposite Huang’gang Control Point (Shenzhen) and adjacent to Lok Ma Chau Control Point (Hong
Kong), making it an ideal site for such exploration. The new typology can be built upon existing
infrastructure and initiate redevelopment.
Through the careful curation of circulation, the cross-border human flow could be captured as
potential experiencers of innovative products. This also suggests the imagination of the new typology
of border control point as a high-tech one for smooth experience. Advanced technologies can be
applied to soften the hard demarcation while maintaining the integrity. For example, facial recognition
system could be used as a contactless and non-invasive approach to identify and verify people
crossing the border. Instead of going through individual counters and machine, people who have
registered could pass through a passageway installed with AI-powered cameras to verify identities.
The innovation hub, thus, becomes a testing ground to bridge the two sides.
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
6. CONCLUSION
Economic agenda is the crucial driving force for cross-border collaborations, as economic
development is the basis of social stability. However, there are views that these collaborations benefit
Shenzhen more than Hong Kong – an unbalanced relationship. This paper looks into the alternative
of active collaboration to build up trust and win-win relationship. Promoting interactions is essential
to lowering hostility and soothing tense relations.
The proposal presented in this paper is an alternative of building an open community, as compared
to the conventional approach of two entities simply collaborating for certain purposes. It is
conceptualized upon urban commons and its close tie with community. Because commons is a set
of social relations which are constantly evolving under the influence of multiple stakeholders, the
shared resources are able to shape interactions within the community. Urban commons are different
from public resources; they are only accessible to and managed by the clearly defined community.
Thus, Lok Ma Chau Innovation Hub, as urban commons, is able to cultivate a new identity beyond
territorial demarcation. It becomes a neutral space where people from both sides can come together,
and in this process, reducing prejudice and building social bonds.
Standing on the basis and belief of effective cross-border collaborations, the proposed framework of
Lok Ma Chau Innovation Hub sees potentials in e-waste recycling, and creates an intermediate space
between the two lines of Hong Kong-Shenzhen border for innovation and technology collaborations.
It redefines border-crossing infrastructure to enable smooth transition, turning it from a space of
separation to a space of connection. This could give rise to an open community and soft boundary,
as an effort to heal the divided society, beyond solely economic agenda and functional development.
There might be many other collaborations which are able to promote interactions effectively and to
bridge the two sides, besides Lok Ma Chau Innovation Hub discussed in this paper. As cross-border
collaboration has been the main theme for Hong Kong-Shenzhen relationship, the two cities will have
an increasingly close tie with each other as partners in business, research and other arenas. Good
relations and trust are essential to the collective growth.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Jessica Ho and Yann Herng Yeow for sharing their pearls of widom with us during the
course of this research. We would also like to show our gratitude to peers and colleagues from
Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore for providing insights.
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
8. REFERENCES
[1] Cheung, J., & Cheung, T. (2018, July 20). Twenty years on, is Deng Xiaoping’s ‘one country,
two systems’ blueprint for Hong Kong working?. Retrieved from
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2097872/balancing-one-country-two-
systems-look-back-20-years-often
[2] Awai, Y. (2016, October 31). Hong Kong’s ‘year 2047 problem’. Retrieved from
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Hong-Kong-s-year-2047-problem
[3] Steinbock, D. (2018, July 20). The rise and demise of Asia’s four little dragons. Retrieved from
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2074773/rise-and-demise-asias-four-little-
dragons
[4] The Economist. (2017, June 23). Two decades after taking over Hong Kong, China is getting
tougher. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/china/2017/06/23/two-decades-after-
taking-over-hong-kong-china-is-getting-tougher.
[5] The Economist. (2017, June 23). Two decades after taking over Hong Kong, China is getting
tougher. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/china/2017/06/23/two-decades-after-
taking-over-hong-kong-china-is-getting-tougher.
[6] Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2018, May). The
Four Key Industries and Other Selected Industries in the Hong Kong Economy. Retrieved
from https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp80.jsp?productCode=FA100099
[7] Cartledge, S. (2017). A system apart: Hong Kong's political economy from 1997 until now.
Docklands, Victoria: Penguin Random House Australia.
[8] Sun, N. (2018, March 1). Hong Kong economy surpassed by tech-heavy neighbor Shenzhen.
Retrieved from https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Hong-Kong-economy-surpassed-by-tech-
heavy-neighbor-Shenzhen
[9] Cheng, A. (2014, August 22).Scrapping multiple-entry permits would allow Hong Kong to
breathe again. Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/comment/article/1578502/scrapping-
multiple-entry-permits-would-allow-hong-kong-breathe-again
[10] Hinsbergh, G. (2018, September 13). China's top 10 largest cities. Retrieved from
https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/top-large-cities.htm
[11] The Economist. (2014, January 16). Hacking Shenzhen. Retrieved from
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2014/01/16/hacking-shenzhen
[12] Bolchover, J., & Hasdell, P. (2017). Border ecologies: Hong Kong’s mainland frontier. Basel:
Birkhauser. Berlin: Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
[13] Winston & Strawn LLP. (2012, August 23). Preferential policy for Qianhai Shenzhen-Hong
Kong Modern Service Industry Cooperation Zone. Retrieved from
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7ae3e237-6eee-44a4-b5cd-c0864d826bf1
[14] Hung, W. (2017, September 27). Trade and investment - Introducing Qianhai. Retrieved from
https://www.amcham.org.hk/news/Introducing-qianhai
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
[15] Siu, P., Zhao, S. & Cheung, G. (2017, January 4). Hong Kong and Shenzhen settle border
dispute as they join hands to develop technology park. Retrieved from
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/ economy/article/2058878/hong-kong-and-
shenzhen-set-partner-innovation-and-technology
[16] Ko, C. (2017, November 1). Policy address 2017 review: Flipping R&D from public-led to
private-led. Retrieved from https://www.cw.com.hk/it-hk/policy-address-2017-review-flipping-
r-d-from-public-led-to-private-led
[17] Google Earth. (2017, November 11). Lok Ma Chau Loop, Hong Kong. 22°31’15.73”N,
114°04’57.04”E, Eye alt 6.57km. CNES/Airbus 2019. Retrieved from
https://www.earth.google.com
[18] ARUP (n.d.). The first joint goverment to develop a low-carbon community. Retrieved from
https://www.arup.com/projects/lok-ma-chau-loop
[19] Powell, D. (2013, April 8). Finding solutions to China’s e-waste problem. Retrieved from
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/assessing-and-improving-the-e-waste-problem-in-china
[20] Karacs, S. (2016, July 3). Turn back the e-waste tide: pressure to stop flood of toxic imports
from US to Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-
environment/article/1984537/turn-back-e-waste-tide-pressure-stop-flood-toxic
[21] Puckett, J. (2010, March 1). Indonesia Turns Back Illegal Shipment of E-waste from USA
"Recycler". Retrieved from
http://archive.ban.org/ban_news/2010/100301_indonesia_turns_back.html
[22] DSV. (n.d.). Dry containers for general purpose. Retrieved from http://www.us.dsv.com/sea-
freight/sea-containers/dry-containers
[23] Bolchover, J., & Hasdell, P. (2017). Border ecologies: Hong Kong’s mainland frontier. Basel:
Birkhauser. Berlin: Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
[24] The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2017, February 22).
LCQ19: Regulation of electronic waste recycling sites and combat of associated illegal
activities. Retrieved from
https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201702/22/P2017022200268.htm?fontSize=1
[25] Fair Planet. (2018, May 1). E-waste in Hong Kong: a hidden graveyard of technology.
Retrieved from https://www.fairplanet.org/story/e-waste-in-hong-kong-a-hidden-graveyard-of-
technology/
[26] Green Peace. (2005, March 28).
香港成电子垃圾转运中心
新界拆解厂污染环境
[Hong Kong
becoming e-waste transshipment node, e-waste dismantling warehouse in New Territories
polluting environment]. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.org.cn/hk-e-wastes-transport/
[27] Nogrady, B. (2016, October 18). Your old phone is full of untapped precious metals. Retrieved
from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161017-your-old-phone-is-full-of-precious-metals
[28] Baldé, C., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., & Stegmann, P. (2017). The Global E-waste Monitor
2017. Retrieved from https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:6341/Global-E-
waste_Monitor_2017__electronic_single_pages_.PDF
THE 12th CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON URBANISM: BEYOND RESILIENCE
Jakarta, 24 – 26 June 2019
[29] World Gold Council. (2019, April 4). Gold mine production. Retrieved from
https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/historical-mine-production
[30] Kip, M., Bieniok, M., Dellenbaugh, M., Muller, A.K. & Schwegmann, M. (2015). Seizing the
(every)day: welcome to the urban commons! In M. Dellenbaugh, M. Kip, M. Bieniok, A.K.
Muller & M. Schwegmann (eds.), Urban commons: Moving beyond state and market (9-25).
Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.
[31] International Co-operative Alliance. (n.d.). What is a cooperative?. Retrieved from
https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/what-is-a-cooperative
[32] Carayannis, E., & Campbell, D. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century
fractal innovation ecosystem. Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 46, Nos. 3/4, 201–234.
[33] Nishizawa, A. (2011). From Triple-helix model to eco-system building model. International
Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, Vol. 2, Nos. 3/4, 304–323. doi:
10.1504/IJTE.2011.043727
[34] Liang, Y. (2017, July 25). [
一地兩檢
]
每日
65
萬人次穿梭中港兩地
多少人會坐高鐵？
[Co-
location arrangement: 650 thousand people crossing Hong Kong-Mainland China border per
day, how many would take high-speed rail?]. Retrieved from https://www.hk01.com/社會新聞
/106507/一地兩檢-每日 65 萬人次穿梭中港兩地-多少人會坐高鐵
