I think you will find that this is actually the southeast corner of the Hongkong Hotel.
The caption is from the Government website.
We will have to trace the dates and tenants of the various buildings owned by the company as the Hong Kong Hotel grew (and outgrew) its premises.
"1866 - The Hongkong Hotel Company acquired the Oriental Hotel and adjoining building, Keying and Marine House in Pedder Street."
Yes I know, and the Govt is wrong in this case. The Hongkong Hotel Company was started in 1866, and the Hotel itself opened in 1868 (although the ever-unreliable Wikipedia will tell you 1866). The China Mail and HKDP both had a series of preopening articles running through February that month. Try HKDP Feb 5, 7 and 13 of 1868 for starters.
1886 The hotel company bought a site at Pedder Wharf, at the end of the Praya, now the site of Gloucester Tower in The Landmark. A 5-storey north wing of the Hongkong Hotel was built, and a 2-storey building to its north leased as a residence to The Hon. C P Chater. http://www.hshgroup.com/history.asp?rtid=58&cid=10&id=51&listid=63
So the original Hong Kong Hotel was not directly on the Praya ...
I never said it was on the Praya, but yes, "opened on the waterfront" is another Wikipedia fallacy ported over from some shabbily researched coffee table book of recycled photos. The original Hongkong Hotel took up the top portion of Pedder Street on its east side during its early years, which is what you see in that photo, from the Southeast corner.
No need to whinge when we can fix it. I often correct information on Wiki. If you don't know how, please post the corrected text for the Hong Kong Hotel here and I'll do it for you.
The fact that anyone can correct it is why Wikipedia is full of errors. I could spend a week going through the Hong Kong stuff fixing it, but what's the point when someone else will sooner or later see something in another (erroneous) source and change it again? Better not to quote anything in absolute terms from Wikipedia without confirming with at least one other reliable source.
I agree with Anon. One of the great advantages of this forum is that it allows people to openly question and correct assertions so that Hong Kong's often hazy history is truthfully recorded. If dates or certain facts aren't known, they're left blank until evidence emerges. If someone shows them to be wrong, then mistakes can be fixed. Wikipedia is very useful as a rough guide and a pointer to sources but that's about all, especially on minor subjects.
Click on your area of interest to choose from over 17,000 pages about old Hong Kong:
Or choose a popular article:
Upgrade notice: The Gwulo website has recently been upgraded. For details of progress, or to report any problems, please click here. A copy of the pre-upgrade website is still available at http://old.gwulo.com.