Hong Kong stools and privatization of publicness Hong Kong has a characteristic of "no stools", where it is difficult to find a place to sit in shopping malls. Even old shopping malls and toilets only allow employees to use keys, which is very outrageous. But recently, two huge "King Tea Lady" and "Luckin Coffee" have opened downstairs, providing a very large resting area in the middle of the mall, which is quite obvious compared to traditional Hong Kong shopping malls and even somewhat ironic. Discussed with GPT and conducted some analysis: Hong Kong's urban design has been criticized for its lack of public space, with almost all "public areas" being commercialized; The government's public recreational spaces are often located in remote areas or managed so strictly that people do not want to use them; Combined with real estate led urban planning, "sitting down" in Hong Kong almost means "occupying commercial space". Hong Kong's shopping malls generally do not have chairs for free rest, which is a combination of commercial operation strategy and space scarcity logic. The space cost is extremely high: Hong Kong has a strong awareness of space efficiency, and every square meter needs to create rent or sales revenue. A place to sit means' non consumption space ', which is a loss for the mall. Liquidity control: The mall hopes that visitors will continue to flow and avoid crowd retention, especially for the elderly, students, or foreign workers who occupy space. Social governance culture: Hong Kong's public space management is very strict, emphasizing order and "non-interference". Sitting anywhere in the eyes of managers is equivalent to an "uncontrollable gathering point". Mainland brands are going against the trend, with Luckin Coffee and Bawang Tea Lady actively providing a large number of seats, comfort zones, and power sockets in their stores in Hong Kong, which is very rare in Hong Kong shopping malls. (There may also be brand marketing factors that please the capital market) These brands from mainland China have inadvertently filled the gap in Hong Kong's urban public spaces, making "sitting down" a daily right that can be re experienced. The people who actually use these seats are not the "target consumers", but the marginalized but most in need of rest in the city: the elderly, students and foreign workers, and low - and middle-income office workers. This is an extremely scarce "inclusive space" in Hong Kong's urban space. These commercial brands, in a sense, assume the function of "public services" that should have been provided by the government or real estate developers. It can be understood as a form of 'commodified common', where the government and real estate developers do not provide public spaces, while businesses provide 'quasi public spaces', This is actually a new urban governance model. When the public sector is lacking, market forces fill the void of urban publicness through experiential competition. This has sparked further contemplation on whether public goods must be provided by NGOs or governments? @brucexu_eth @0xHY2049