HONG KONG | Victoria Harbour Reclamation Development News [Archive]

hkskyline

April 29th, 2005, 05:14 PM

http://www.friendsoftheharbour.org/header_right.jpg

Why the Fuss about Victoria Harbour?

1. The case for minimizing reclamation of Victoria Harbour centres on the protection of a unique and special public asset and the natural heritage of Hong Kong.

2. Victoria Harbour is Nature's gift to Hong Kong people. It is set against a stunning landscape of mountains, land and water. There are few harbours in the world that can match its breathtaking beauty. We ruin it at our peril.

3. As natural heritage nothing artificial, however "beneficial", can substitute for it.

4. Heritage connotes continuity capable of transmission from generation to generation. Hence, once any part of the body of water of the harbour is reclaimed, it is lost forever to the people of Hong Kong and can no longer figure in the continuum of inheritance.

5. The original Victoria Harbour was about 7,000 hectares in size. By 1990, over 2,500 hectares had already been reclaimed, but Government still proposed to reclaim a further 1,297 hectares (4½ square miles). Of these, by the time the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance was enacted in 1997, a further 661 hectares had been reclaimed such that nearly half of the original harbour had been made into land. Despite the Ordinance, the Government has been proposing to reclaim the remaining 636 hectares. Thus, Hong Kong is in danger of losing the total of 3,800 hectares (15 square miles), that is, more than half of the harbour.

6. The campaign to protect and preserve Victoria Harbour, which began in 1995 with the founding of the Society for the Protection of the Harbour, aims to ensure that the harbour, which has been designated a special public asset and a natural heritage of Hong Kong people by the Ordinance, cannot be encroached upon unless there is an overwhelming reason, for example, for essential infrastructure. Hong Kong is fighting to protect and preserve what is left of its magnificent harbour.

Victoria Harbour and Hong Kong's Development

1. Up until relatively recently, Hong Kong's economy was dominated by the fact that it was a port and trade was its lifeblood. Victoria Harbour had therefore been the centre of the city's economic life.

2. During the 1950s and 1960s, Hong Kong became a manufacturing centre for light industrial goods made for export. From the 1980s, however, production began to shift to the Mainland with Hong Kong evolving into a centre servicing the growing manufacturing base in South China.

3. Harbour front port activities on Hong Kong Island and Kowloon dropped significantly with the growth of containerized shipment and the construction of the container ports at Kwai Chung from the 1970s.

4. With this major change land along the harbour front became available for development. As Hong Kong began to transform itself into a service centre, more land was needed. It was expedient to reclaim Victoria Harbour rather than to consider developing away from the harbour area since the policy of reclamation appeared to upset nobody. Victoria Harbour had no voice to speak for its own protection.

5. Reclamation also generated substantial revenue for the Government who auctioned off the new land. Developing along the extended harbour front leveraged the existing infrastructure, which turned the northern shore of Hong Kong Island into the focus for transport infrastructure throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s.

6. However, there are limits to how far we can pack further developments onto the harbour frontage. Congestion has become a daily occurrence. The environment has degenerated. The cost of transporting commuters by road and rail to the city centre has risen. Moreover, a beautiful and historic landmark has been decimated by poor planning and zoning.

7. Recent assertions by the Government that reclamation has been a key determinant of Hong Kong's success are inaccurate. Growth was generated by Hong Kong's ability to transform itself into a service economy. The Government simply chose to meet the demand for land by harbour reclamation and not by other means, which could have included developing the New Territories or urban regeneration, because reclamation was expedient and until 1995, there was no advocate speaking for Victoria Harbour.

Impacts of Reclamation

Reclamation affects us all. There are economic, social, political and environmental impacts:

1. Strategic Planning: Harbour reclamation focussed development on the harbour area at the expense of other parts of the city. It contributed to isolating Hong Kong from the Pearl River Delta hinterland even as economic activities began moving across the border from the 1980s onwards.

2. Urban Renewal: The ease with which new land could be created by reclamation resulted in lazy planning, which in turn resulted in a failure on the part of the Government to devise effective urban regeneration policies. Vast tracks of development in the urban areas remain dilapidated and under-utilised today.

3. Land Policy: Reclamation generated land for the Government to sell, the proceeds for which were used to finance roads and other waterfront infrastructure, which in turn fed the government's 'high land price policy' for many years.

4. Amenity Value: Victoria Harbour has substantial amenity value in a world that increasingly places recreational pursuits as key to a high quality of life. That value is overtaking any supposed benefits arising from continuing harbour reclamation.

5. Aesthetic Value: Reclamation, together with the lack of control to protect the skyline and visual integrity of Hong Kong's natural landscape in the harbour area, has diminished the city's overall beauty, which damages tourism opportunities as well as diminishing residents' enjoyment of the city.

6. Harbour Safety: Victoria Harbour has been significantly narrowed, which creates a less safe environment for shipping and other water activities as water currents become much stronger and space to manouever is reduced.

7. Congestion Creation: Each new reclamation project has resulted in additional commercial and residential development, which in turn has generated further traffic demands that require yet more roads and more reclamation for roads.

8. Traffic Management: Coupled with the Government's preference for new road provisions to relieve traffic - rather than using traffic demand-management methods - road systems along the harbour front on Hong Kong Island have taken precedence over aesthetics, pollution control and thereby also public health. Alternatives to the simple addition of more roadways have not been fully explored.

9. Landscape Destruction: Harbour reclamation has resulted in the permanent destruction of Hong Kong's most valuable and irreplaceable natural asset.

10. Air Pollution: Intensive development of the reclaimed areas has substantially and dangerously increased air pollution in the urban area.

11. Contaminated Mud: Soft mud on the bottom of the harbour is heavily contaminated with heavy metals and organic chemicals. Dredging - a necessary part of reclamation - stirs up the mud and releases some of those contaminants into the water.

12. Mud Dumping: The contaminated mud is dumped in an area near Chek Lap Kok airport, which is close to a marine park where pink dolphins swim.

13. Flushing Action: Reclamation narrows the harbour and potentially creates "dead spots" where there is little flushing tidal action, and where litter and sewage could accumulate.

14. Loss of Habitat: The loss of natural coastlines could result in the loss of habitats and shallow feeding areas for many inter-tidal creatures that live in shallow sandy bays or on rocky shorelines.

15. Governance and Good Faith: The rushed award of the works contract for Central Reclamation Phase III raised doubts about whether the hurry was related to the Society for Protection of the Harbour's application for a judicial review on the Town Planning Board's approval of the Wanchai Development Plan Phase II. The award was the subject of an arbitration hearing, where the Review Body ruled that it was made in "undue haste". The effect the Government's "precipitous action" had been "to render nugatory any substantive recommendation that this Panel could make." The Panel noted that the correct procedure would have been for the authorities to give an opportunity to the tenderers to reconsider their tender submissions.

16. Rule of Law: The Society for Protection of the Harbour's successful judicial review against the Town Planning Board's approved plan for Wanchai Development Plan Phase II in effect required the Chief Executive-in-Council to refer the Central Reclamation Phase III back to the Town Planning Board for review. The Government's unwillingness to do so to date raises questions about its commitment to due process and the rule of law.

17. Civic Action: Excessive harbour reclamation has ignited public interest to protect and preserve Victoria Harbour. Where even the law fails to adequately protect the harbour, civic action needs to take over.

scorpion

April 29th, 2005, 10:04 PM

HK has selfishly chosen a political battle it knows it can win...

Despite how ironic this particular issue really is--

spicytimothy

April 30th, 2005, 11:49 AM

In my humble opinion, any plans will only delay traffic congrestion to occur again... toll road and what not will solve traffic for a MUCH MUCH SHORTER TIME than building new roads... and guess what... toll road means more money outta the public's pockets... and by then people will start complaining again... the buses and others will use it as a reason to raise fares... and the mtr will get even more crowded...

granted building new roads isn't a permanent fix either but it helps for a longer time... besides it's just a lil more reclamation... wht's the point of keeping the habor the way it is?

besides, Hong Kong still needs a boardwalk/habor-front walk!

hkskyline

May 14th, 2005, 08:52 PM

How to Lose a Harbor For more than a century, Hong Kong has polluted and misused its greatest asset.
But a sea change in attitude may be on the way
Chaim Estulin/Hong Kong
2 May 2005
Time International Asia Ed.

The sun is shining on the balcony of the Quarterdeck Club Seafood Restaurant and Grill, and luncheon diners have a terrific view of Hong Kong's Victoria Harbour, full of wooden sampans and junks, speeding ferries and lavish white yachts. It's the picture-perfect postcard image that Hong Kong promotes to potential visitors from abroad.

Good luck scoring that view if you live in the territory. The Quarterdeck is one of the very few al fresco restaurants open to the public on the harbor, and visiting it on foot involves negotiating an obstacle course over highways and through office buildings. And-- be warned--the view isn't entirely idyllic. As well as those sampans, patrons can also watch half a dozen barges dumping stone and dirt into the water, hence each day robbing Hong Kong of a little more of its most famous feature.

That process has been going on pretty much from the time that Britain took possession of what its Foreign Secretary back in 1841 called a "barren rock." Whatever else they may have been good at, successive generations of Hong Kong people have been terrific at filling in their harbor. The fashionistas' haunts in Causeway Bay, the new 88-story IFC II building (sixth tallest in the world) in Central, Suzie Wong's bars in Wanchai, the world's busiest container port, the runway at the old Kai Tak airport that used to have white- knuckled flyers fingering their rosaries--they were all built on reclaimed land. One hundred and sixty years of hauling landfill from mountainsides and construction dumps and shoveling it into the water has left Hong Kong with a harbor that, between the Central business district and Tsim Sha Tsui on the Kowloon side, is now just about 1 km wide--shorter than the span of New York's George Washington Bridge over the Hudson River. Visitors to Hong Kong who arrive in town expecting an easily accessible, vibrant waterfront like the ones in Sydney or Baltimore are in for a rude surprise: most of Hong Kong's shoreline is hidden behind skyscrapers, parking lots, utilities and highways. "I can't get a beer [on the waterfront]," says Paul Zimmerman, an executive at a local venture-capital firm who in 2002 founded Designing Hong Kong Harbour to encourage new thinking in waterfront planning. "I need to jump over road barriers to get there." And once you've got over those barriers and found the water, here's a tip: stay out of it. Each day, 450,000 cu m of raw semi-filtered sewage--the same volume as 200 Olympic-size full swimming pools--is flushed into the harbor. Pretty much the only things that live there are rabbitfish and ponyfish, acorn barnacles, green-lipped mussels, and bacteria.

But after years of despoiling its very name--Hong Kong means "fragrant harbor" in Chinese--things may finally be about to change. An unlikely coalition of environmental activists, business leaders and (this being Hong Kong) property developers is pushing for a rethink of how to make the harbor something more than an international embarrassment. Last week, about 70 executives from more than 90 of the city's biggest companies and institutions quietly assembled on the 40th floor of the HSBC headquarters--the very heart of the territory's traditional business community--for the first meeting of a new body, the Harbour Business Forum. According to one participant in the gathering, the group will act as a lobby for better use of the harbor and will press for the creation of a single authority to take charge of the harbor's development. "This will give the government a jolt," says Roger Nissim, a project planning manager for Sun Hung Kai Ltd., Hong Kong's largest property developer, and a member of the Forum. "We are not seen as the lunatics, we are not the green groups, we are not radical."

The business leaders' timing could not be better. Two major plans for the harbor are now in limbo, having been subject to a barrage of legal and popular complaints. A planned 26-hectare reclamation in Wanchai--whose principal purpose was for a highway--was halted last year by a court challenge. And proposals for an ambitious arts district on reclaimed land in West Kowloon have been frozen by public protests over the government's intention to hand the $6.8 billion project to a single developer. In this enforced breathing space, Hong Kong has a rare opportunity to figure out, once and for all, what it wants to do with its most valuable resource.

Nobody doubts that without reclamation there wouldn't be a Hong Kong. The narrow band of land squeezed between the water and the hills of Hong Kong island was always too small to nourish the territory's ambitions. But the development of the city's waterfront has been both relentless and uncoordinated. Hong Kong has no central planning for the harbor: its use and misuse are dictated by more than a dozen competing government departments and covered by at least 15 separate zoning plans. Hong Kong's "relationship with the waterfront was always an awkward thing," says Richard Marshall, an urban design director for the planning firm EDAW, who led a Harvard University study of the harbor in 2000. "It's surprising, given the identity the waterfront has with Hong Kong."

Maybe not too surprising. In a city where the word taxes has long had people reaching for the smelling salts, successive British colonial governments learned to use sales of reclaimed land to finance their budgets. In the mid-1990s--the last time a chunk of centrally located landfill came on the market--the administration sold 0.35 hectares to Citic Group for $430 million, while a consortium of developers paid $1.54 billion for the right to develop another site that now includes the IFC II skyscraper. "It was cheap, easy money," says Sun Hung Kai's Nissim, who for 20 years had worked as a senior government surveyor. "But it spun out of control."

While Hong Kong's government was milking the harbor as a tax cow, it missed what was happening elsewhere in the world. As shipping moved from downtown wharves to purpose-built container ports, old cities discovered that their weedy waterfronts could be reworked into the sort of environments that would attract--and retain--both tourist dollars and the creative minds that give a place fizz. From Boston to Bilbao, from Singapore to Sydney--even, for heaven's sake, in Liverpool, the ultimate rusted-up port--city planners have remade harbors into lively, people-friendly places full of restaurants, design studios and cultural attractions. "Waterfronts are now cherished assets," says Marshall. According to a study by the Boston Foundation, the $21 billion, 20-year cleanup of Beantown's once dank harbor has created 47,000 jobs and attracted $8.4 billion in "present or planned" new investment. "We have a renaissance here," says Bruce Berman, spokesman for Boston's Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, the group that spearheaded the waterfront revitalization. "It has transformed the city and put us in a very competitive position." Hong Kong could reap similar rewards. A Designing Hong Kong Harbour study predicts that a vibrant Victoria Harbour with restaurants, cultural venues and marinas would create an estimated 50,000 jobs.

Over the past few years, the realization that Hong Kong, too, can do something with its harbor has begun to sink into the city's consciousness. Winston Chu, 65, remembers taking girlfriends for evening strolls along the harbor in the 1960s. Forty years later, Chu collected tens of thousands of signatures for a law banning most harbor reclamation works. One of his inspirations was his 90-year- old mother, Cissy, who invited him up to her harbor-view penthouse garden in 1995 and, pointing to the shrinking waterway, "gave me a scolding and instructed me to do something about it." In 1997, in the waning days of British rule, the local Legislative Council passed the Harbour Protection Ordinance. The incoming postcolonial administration tried, but failed, to repeal the law, and in 2002 pressed ahead with a plan to build a mostly underground highway from Central to Causeway Bay through reclaimed land. Chu spent nearly $1 million of his own money on a legal challenge to the scheme, and in January 2004, the Court of Final Appeal struck down the government's ambitions. The judges deemed the waterfront "a natural heritage" to be trifled with only when there is "an overriding public need." Part of the land for that project has already been reclaimed, but the government is blocked from reclaiming the other 26 hectares.

Michael Suen, Hong Kong's Secretary of Housing, Planning and Lands, insists that he and his colleagues have got the message. "We know the harbor is our greatest asset," he stresses. But Suen says that somehow or other, a new highway has to be built. "The overriding need is the road," he says, while pledging that most of the land above it will be used for parks and promenades. Activists, however, have heard such claims before. Chu asks, "Who can trust the government?" and notes that the planned West Kowloon cultural district, will, if completed, offer millions of square meters of commercial and residential space--but it was zoned as a park when the land was first reclaimed in 1996.

The key issue now is to find a method and a platform on which the new mood can be turned into real plans. Constant lawsuits--a staple of Hong Kong life as well established as reclamation--won't do the trick. "You can't design a city in a courthouse," says Zimmerman. "We have policy constipation," remarks Sun Hung Kai's Nissim.

In Hong Kong, few policies move without the backing of the business community, which is why the formation of the Harbour Business Forum is important. Business leaders don't want to take over all plans for the harbor. But the Forum has already settled on four broad areas in which it wants the Hong Kong government's performance to improve, and it will release the details next month. The Forum's report will call for a single, omniscient harbor authority, and transparency in the planning of projects. At the same time, the group says there should be a bias toward developing the harbor with public spaces, and that the 2004 court ruling banning nearly all reclamation should be respected. "The strength of feeling about the harbor has become conspicuous," says one of the participants at last week's meeting. "The business community should use its resources, its skills, its position in the community to move things forward. An improved harbor would be good for business."

Make that good, too, for intrepid swimmers, artists, cocktail kings, fishermen--heck, everybody. Who wants lunch? -

WEST KOWLOON: Three plans were shortlisted last year to turn this 40-hectare site into a vast cultural district under a swooping, Norman Foster-designed canopy. Opposition to granting control of the site to a single developer has led even senior officials to admit that it will probably be returned to the drawing board.

WANCHAI RECLAMATION PHASE II: In 2004, a court struck down this 26-hectare project, saying it doesn't comply with a 1997 ordinance requiring that reclamation should occur only when absolutely necessary. The plan is being revamped.

CENTRAL RECLAMATION PHASE III: Almost 20 hectares-- about half of the initial proposal-- will be filled in by 2007 as part of a 30- year plan to unfurl another waterfront highway. The government has recently promised to put the road underground and use the land for low-rise buildings and public spaces.

WATER QUALITY

About a decade ago, the harbor was choking with heavy metals and untreated sewage. The government began a cleanup program, but the water still has insufficient oxygen for most marine life. Only hardy species like the rabbitfish can survive.

More than 160 years of hauling landfill from mountainsides and construction sites and shoveling it into the water has left Hong Kong's harbor about 1 km wide--shorter than the span of the George Washington Bridge over New York's Hudson River

hkskyline

June 2nd, 2005, 05:42 PM

Thursday June 2, 8:24 PM
Leading businesses set up coalition to protect Hong Kong's harbor from reclamation

AP - In a rare display of business concern for the environment, about 100 of Hong Kong's top companies on Thursday formed a coalition to protect the city's famed Victoria Harbor from further reclamation.

"Our harbor is a core part of Hong Kong's heritage, an international symbol of our city and a source of inspiration to those who live and work in Hong Kong," said the coalition's spokesman Vincent Cheng, chairman of The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp., the local unit of HSBC Holdings PLC.

"Reclamation should be avoided as much as possible," he said.

The government welcomed the group's launch in a statement released Thursday.

"It is the common goal and in the interests of the government, the business sector and non-governmental organizations to work hand-in-hand to promote the enhancement and sustainable development of the harbour and harbour-front areas," the statement said.

Concerns about the harbor have been raised since thousands of people protested last year against land reclamation that they say will turn Victoria Harbor into a river. It has already shrunk by almost half, or 3,200 hectares (7,907 acres), after decades of reclamation.

Last year, anti-reclamation activists won a court battle to stop a planned 26-hectare (74-acre) strip for a road, park and commercial development in Hong Kong's financial district.

Cheng said the business coalition, called the Harbor Business Forum, has set up a committee to study what other cities have done in the transformation of their waterfronts so as to plot a development strategy for Hong Kong's harbor.

The coalition's patrons, which will fund its research projects, include HSBC, Standard Chartered Bank, Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd., other conglomerates such as The Swire Group, CITIC Pacific Ltd. and Jardine Matheson Holdings.

It also includes 27 chambers of commerce and business associations.

Cheng said it will try to influence government policy in the harbor's preservation.

He rejected suggestions that the coalition's establishment reflected a sudden change of heart by businesses and property developers, who have been the biggest beneficiaries of development made possible by reclamation.

"We all come together with a very sincere wish, which is to look at the future use of the harbor so that everybody in Hong Kong _ the business, the people, every stakeholder in Hong Kong _ can be proud," Cheng said.

"It's not about property development. It's not just about transport. It's not just about economics. It's the whole value of the harbor for us," he said.

Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm

June 3rd, 2005, 05:24 AM

^ I read the article above the last one you posted, and I TOTALLY agree with the initiative to "rethink" Victoria Harbour. I first visited Hong Kong last July, and stayed in the Eaton Hotel in Kowloon. I had hoped to at least see a little of the harbour from the rooftop, but all I saw was building after building, and most of them were so tall I couldn't even see anything on Hong Kong Island!

The little pedestrian bridge that goes around the Intercontinental Hotel is a great place to view the harbour from Kowloon, but other than that I had a difficult time seeing it. They need to put some kind of a waterfront park in Kowloon.

I also think the Cultural District would be great for public viewing of the Harbour, but I'm not exactly sure why this is being blocked by environmentalists. Will the project require even more reclaimed land than what's already there from the Western Harbour Crossing road tunnel?

hkskyline

June 3rd, 2005, 06:17 AM

The cultural district doesn't require any more reclamation. Environmentalists are more concerned with reclamation on the other side - Hong Kong Island.

Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm

June 3rd, 2005, 07:06 AM

The cultural district doesn't require any more reclamation. Environmentalists are more concerned with reclamation on the other side - Hong Kong Island.

Right, so why are people happy the WKCD isn't being handed over to a single developer? What does that mean in terms of using reclaimed land efficiently?

hkskyline

June 3rd, 2005, 06:42 PM

The people are unhappy because of the lack of transparency using the single developer approach. The cultural district is not a property development, but it seems the bids contain significant residential content and perhaps pooling several developers together can help bring many good ideas together.

A lot of the anger relates to how the government is handling the issue. Transparency and accountability are very important after what happened with the backroom dealing for Cyberport.

The cultural district will get built eventually, but not until these points get sorted out first, albeit very political in nature.

hkskyline

November 14th, 2005, 05:49 AM

Harbour protection policy goal reaffirmed by Government
Government Press Release

In response to media enquiries on harbour activities organised by some individual groups today (November 13), a spokesman for the Government gives the following reply:

"The Government fully appreciates and shares the community's aspirations to protect and preserve Victoria Harbour. As reasserted by the Chief Executive in the Policy Address delivered last month, the Government is committed to the protection and beautification of the harbour. The continued protection, preservation and enhancement of the harbour have been our policy goals.

The harbour, a symbol of the city of Hong Kong, is one of the most valuable public assets and a vital part of Hong Kong's natural heritage. The Government is committed to working closely with the community to enhance the waterfront areas of Victoria Harbour with a view not only to creating an enjoyable harbour-front, but also to facilitating other economic activities for the community and celebrating the harbour which embodies our collective memories and achievements.

The Hong Kong Harbour Day, with the Secretary for Home Affairs being the Patron of the event and various government departments taking part and rendering logistics support, is a good example of community-driven effort to promote the harbour for the enjoyment of all, and we are thankful for the community's initiatives.

The Government has repeatedly pledged that apart from the existing Central Reclamation Phase III (CRIII), Wan Chai Development Phase II and Kai Tak (Southeast Kowloon) Development, we will not consider any reclamations within the harbour.

It is also the Government's pledge to adhere strictly to the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and comply with the 'overriding public need' test stipulated by the Court of Final Appeal in taking forward all remaining reclamation projects.

The Government's determination to protect the harbour and to involve the public in achieving our policy goals is also exemplified by the setting up of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (HEC) in May 2004.

With broad-based community representation, the HEC is tasked with advising the Government on planning, land use, development and enhancement of the existing and new waterfront areas. The HEC has already launched a number of public engagement programmes for the review of the Wan Chai Development Phase II and the Kai Tak development, as well as other harbourfront enhancement projects. It is encouraging to see the community participating and responding actively in the process.

Early this year, the HEC developed a set of Harbour Planning Principles, which has served as guidelines for the Government, all individuals and organisations in the sustainable planning, development and management of Victoria Harbour.

The Government will continue to work with HEC and to engage the community in enhancing Victoria Harbour and its waterfront areas.

Members of the public can learn more about the Government's vision by making reference to a leaflet entitled "Our Living Harbour", which is available for distribution at a number of venues, including District Offices and public libraries, and at the website link http://www.hplb.gov.hk/reclamation/images/OurLivingHabour_eng.pdf.

Rachmaninov

November 14th, 2005, 12:27 PM

http://xa4.xanga.com/cbd17be6295a317235042/w12414154.jpg
Reliable?

Skyscrapercitizen

November 14th, 2005, 04:58 PM

Hmmm, not a very good idea all those reclamations in the center... Would be better to make a new island somewehre north of the western part of HK Island maybe...

What about a HK Palm... ;)

spicytimothy

November 14th, 2005, 11:26 PM

Never heard of the brown ones and the orange one is already scraped.

A lot of those pamphlets from the harbor protection groups have their statistics/info wrong... so beware :-/

superchan7

November 15th, 2005, 12:18 AM

Throwing away the rest of Kowloon Bay would have been terrible. Good thing the orange one didn't pass. I have not heard of any plans like those brown ones. Causeway Bay typhoon shelter would have nowhere to go, and the Kowloon side brown areas would block the WKCD.

raymond_tung88

November 15th, 2005, 12:30 AM

I hope they don't do the Green Island Reclamation... That would just be terrible!

BTW, last time I heard Causeway Bay was not being reclaimed... is this still true? Also about that missing "gap" joining Wanchai and Central, is that going to be filled in or no?

bs_lover_boy

November 17th, 2005, 02:06 AM

http://xa4.xanga.com/cbd17be6295a317235042/w12414154.jpg
Reliable?

The one that Rachmaninov posted was the British Proposal before HK was handed back to China.

This one (below) is the one that the Government is currently thinking about, but that size will be further reduced from what I am hearing from different articles and visions from the government.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/bs_lover_boy/Forum%20uploads/reclaim.jpg

spicytimothy

November 17th, 2005, 04:46 AM

Thanks bs_lover_boy...

To clarify the above picture, the blue line is what some of the harbor-protection groups claim as the extent of proposed reclamation, and the yellow shows the areas of discrepencies from what the gov't actually proposed.

the green parts were what the gov't proposed, but it's still gonna be significantly less than that, e.g. the area around Kai Tak

hkskyline

November 20th, 2005, 04:18 AM

Fears raised over harbor plan's commercial features

Although harbor protection groups generally welcome new government plans to redevelop the Central ferry pier area, commercial development continues to remain a point of contention.

Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, November 18, 2005

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20051118/COMMERCE.jpg

Although harbor protection groups generally welcome new government plans to redevelop the Central ferry pier area, commercial development continues to remain a point of contention.

"Commercial development should not be placed at the harborfront, because Hong Kong is never short of space for this kind of development," said independent lawmaker and Action Group on Protection of the Harbour activist Kwok Ka-ki.

Following a 10-month public consultation, the government-appointed committee Thursday unveiled four visions for the area bordering the Central- Wan Chai bypass reclamation project. The plans emphasize different themes: commerce, leisure, tourism and transportation.

Public consultation revealed about 63 percent of 651 subjects contacted in the central ferry piers area said leisure functions should be a priority. About 48 percent said tourism functions should be a priority, with an equal number saying transportation should take precedence.

In the next phase of consultation, the public will be invited to comment on the four plans and to choose from a list of proposed features, which include a new transport link to Central, shopping facilities and an observation lookout.

But Kwok warned that the options may have been designed to mislead the public into choosing a more commercialized design. "If you ask the public whether they want commercial activities, people will tend to say they don't mind a little bit," Kwok said.

But once a person checks the box for a commercial feature, he will not be able to control the quantity or size of that feature, Kwok explained.

"Then at the end of the day the government will say, `Look, you wanted to have commercial activities, so we put them up for you,"' he said.

Kwok said he is concerned continued commercialization in Central will add to traffic congestion and lead to further reclamation. He pointed out the objective of the Central-Wan Chai bypass reclamation project is to reduce traffic congestion.

However, a committee spokesman stressed that the draft concept plans are not development options but are intended to provide a basis for public discussion on development proposals.

Committee business sector representative Paul Zimmerman said the project's main objective is to create connectivity between all modes of transport. Possible transportation developments include a monorail, a remodeled bus terminus and elevated pedestrian walkways.

"We want to enhance the area to make it better for current users," he said, "and the second objective is to make it more attractive, so it will be a place where people will want to be."

Projected costs have not been disclosed. However, Zimmerman said the pedestrian deck will cost between HK$500 million and HK$600 million.

The committee is scheduled to deliver a full report of its findings to the administration in February. No timetable has been set for construction.

Aboveday

November 20th, 2005, 03:13 PM

hkskyline

November 20th, 2005, 04:14 PM

Tamar pollution prediction 'far too low'
Official environmental report 'pretends Central has a flat surface' with no tall buildings, say experts
20 November 2005
South China Morning Post

Official figures seriously underestimate the pollution levels people will face in Central once the new government offices are built at the Tamar site and the surrounding district developed, it has been claimed.

The Sunday Morning Post has learned that air pollution could be three times higher than predicted by the Environmental Protection Department's 2001 environmental impact assessment (EIA) report, due to miscalculations.

Annelise Connell, vice-chairwoman of Clear the Air, says pollution predictions on the Tamar site and the Central Reclamation Phase III were based on 1999 data plugged into a prediction model that assumes Central has no buildings.

"The entire air pollution assessment is useless," she said. "There is not a chance in the world that the real numbers are within objective. The CRP III and Tamar site project would not have been approved if the real figures had been used."

In the assessment, suspended particles (RSP) at the Central roadside station were not expected to exceed an average concentration of 80 micrograms per cubic metre and the Air Pollution Index was expected to remain below 100. In reality, the RSP figure has been as high as 257 micrograms and the API has reached 100 some 97 times.

The discrepancy may have to do with the fact that the department used air pollution figures taken at a station near SoHo instead of at the roadside station in Central. The station, on the upper level of the police station in High Street, is 18 metres above ground, while the roadside station at the junction of Chater Road and Des Voeux Road Central is 4.5 metres above ground.

"The air up there is obviously relatively cleaner," said Ms Connell, who is calling for the Tamar project to be postponed pending new assessments.

Meanwhile, air-quality-modelling expert Jimmy Fung Chi-hung says the government's pollution model "pretends Central is a flat surface" and ignores the fact that pollution gets trapped.

The University of Science and Technology associate professor said a "deep canyon" of pollution was created when buildings by the road were twice as high as the width of the road. "Pollution is three times higher than in places where air can flow freely. If you have doubts, just think of how bad the air is in Causeway Bay," he said.

"For a two- to three-lane road, a three-storey commercial building is high enough to create a deep canyon. Cars release exhaust very close to the ground. Central's canyon would be very deep."

He suggested the government produce another report using a newer model that considers the buildings. This would take about three months and cost $300,000.

However, the department is standing by its methods and findings. Asked by the Post for comment, a spokeswoman said the study had been conducted in line with EIA procedures and the public and the Advisory Council on the Environment had been consulted before the report was approved.

The Constitutional Affairs Bureau felt there was no need to delay the Tamar project, which a spokesman said would have "no significant impact on the air pollution in the Central Business District".

Aboveday

November 21st, 2005, 02:31 PM

http://www.harbourprotection.org/web_image/other/appendix03.jpg

Aboveday

November 21st, 2005, 02:34 PM

http://www.harbourprotection.org/web_image/other/appendix06.jpg

hkskyline

November 22nd, 2005, 02:04 AM

Public being kept in the dark over Tamar site, say activists
22 November 2005
South China Morning Post

Three anti-reclamation groups yesterday accused the government of plotting to keep the public and the Legislative Council in the dark over the future of the harbourfront Tamar site in Admiralty.

The Society for Protection of the Harbour, the Action Group on Protection of the Harbour, and Friends of the Harbour said the planning process for the site would be worse than that for the West Kowloon Cultural District development.

They demanded an immediate suspension of preparations for building a new government headquarters at Tamar.

Independent legislator Kwok Ka-ki said: "Tamar planning is going to be a black-box operation."

He was referring to the decision not to consult the public on the design of the government headquarters in order to speed up its construction.

The groups accused the government of cheating the public and the High Court, given that it had promised that commercial properties would not be built on the land currently being reclaimed in Central.

A speech at a dinner for the Australian Business Awards three years ago by then-chief executive Tung Chee-hwa was cited as evidence. Mr Tung said: "There would be sort of a park or promenade for the public to enjoy the harbour from the Central area. There will be no commercial buildings on top of it."

They also cited an extract from a government lawyer's argument in the High Court in a 2003 case over the Central reclamation. The three groups said the counsel only mentioned building a promenade in Central and not commercial properties.

A spokeswoman for the Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau denied the allegation. She stressed the statutory outline zoning plan for the future of Central, including Tamar, had been adopted in February 2000 and nothing had changed since then.

The Administration Wing, which is in charge of the Tamar project, said tendering for the work had not started. "We haven't issued the prequalification exercise and haven't gone to the Legco Finance Committee for money. We have nothing to suspend."

InitialD18

November 23rd, 2005, 12:34 AM

http://www.starphotohk.com/hk-place/20051104-CentralHarbour01-600.jpg
I found this on a hkg website
Star Ferry

vincent

November 23rd, 2005, 02:34 AM

hkskyline

November 24th, 2005, 03:05 AM

Tamar HQ to be half the density of surrounding sites
Shortlisted designs may be made public to allay concerns
23 November 2005
South China Morning Post

The density of the Tamar development will be only half that of sites surrounding it, officials revealed at a Legislative Council panel meeting yesterday.

In an attempt to allay public concerns that the new government headquarters would create a wall-effect on the Admiralty waterfront, Director of Administration Chang King-yiu said the plot ratio would be about seven, while surrounding sites had a plot ratio of between 13 and 15.

She said the estimated $4.9 billion construction cost of the new headquarters and Legco complex was based on the latest information on building top-grade offices in Central.

Speaking at the planning, lands and works panel, officials softened their previously firm stance that shortlisted designs on the new headquarters would not be made public.

The government had earlier cited World Trade Organisation procurement rules that demand all commercial information in a tender be kept confidential.

Ms Chang said: "We will consult legal opinion and try to balance the interests of the bidders and those of the public to see if we can make public the shortlisted designs."

The government's plans for the Tamar site drew strong criticism from legislators.

Daniel Lam Wai-keung, of the Heung Yee Kuk, was the only one to voice support.

"The land has been left vacant for a decade. The government should start construction as soon as possible," he said.

But most legislators at yesterday's panel meeting had strong reservations about the project.

Alan Leong Kah-kit, of the Article 45 Concern Group, was sceptical of the government's design-and-build tender. "You want to build a landmark. But on design-and-build, the emphasis is always on cost savings. I doubt you can have a landmark structure through design-and-build," he said.

Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat questioned why the government wanted to rush the project through.

Ms Chang defended the design-and-build approach, saying: "Design will carry as much weight as technology and cost efficiencies. Construction will be smoother if the whole project is done by one company. It will avoid unnecessary conflict."

She also revealed the government had plans for 500 parking spaces, with more than 100 allocated to Legco.

She stressed the headquarters would generate only 4 per cent of the traffic in Central by 2016. "The amount is very small in the context of Central, so it will not worsen traffic," she said.

Officials believed most people working at Tamar would use public transport, and there would be two footbridges: one connecting with the Admiralty MTR station and the other linking Citic Tower.

The panel will organise a public hearing on the project next month.

Effer

November 24th, 2005, 04:20 AM

Another huge project in Hong Kong! :okay:

hkskyline

December 14th, 2005, 06:20 AM

Ex-judge blasts 'lies' on land reclamation
14 November 2005
South China Morning Post

A former High Court judge yesterday accused the government of lying and only pleasing developers in its reclamation policies.

He spoke out as 10,000 people took part in two events with the harbour as their theme.

Simon Li Fook-sean, 83, made a rare public appearance at the closing carnival of Harbour Week in Golden Bauhinia Square, Wan Chai.

After calling the government's position despicable two years ago, Mr Li was again in a hard-hitting mood. The government "obviously chooses to please property developers", he said, referring to its proposed commercial and office development on the new Central reclamation.

He said officials disregarded public opinion and nothing would change "unless all Legco members did something drastic like resigning - but then how would that ever happen?"

Mr Li said: "The government always tells you what they would do to improve the waterfront. But when have they done anything at all? The government is a liar and they have cheated the public."

The event was organised by the Society for Protection of the Harbour, Action Group on Protection of the Harbour and Friends of the Harbour. They hoped a show of people power would persuade the government to abandon its plan to build a new headquarters at the Tamar site and shopping malls on reclaimed land in Central.

About 5,000 people turned out for the closing carnival, with a pop concert and a forum to criticise the government's reclamation plans. Also attending were legislators from various political camps, including Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, Lee Wing-tat and Choy So-yuk.

Former talk-show hosts Wong Yuk-man and Albert Cheng King-hon, now a legislator, held the forum.

A crowd of 5,000 people showed up earlier in the day to take part in Harbour Day, an event supported by the government.

It included 180 boats competing in the annual Around the Island Race organised by the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club, followed by helicopter rescue demonstrations by the Government Flying Services, a boat parade and helicopter rides for 43 young cancer patients.

Society for Protection of the Harbour founder Winston Chu Ka-sun - who had expected 10,000 people to show up for the close of Harbour Week - said he was disappointed at the turnout.

He revealed the society had held talks with the yacht club - a partner of the Harbour Day's organising committee - in May on the possibility of an activity to promote harbour protection, but he claimed the club said it did not want to damage its relationship with the government.

hkskyline

December 14th, 2005, 04:10 PM

Reclamation projects remain sensitive to public opinion
13 December 2005
Lloyd's List

MARINE operators such as Van Oord, Jan de Nul and Dredging International are playing a waiting game as Hong Kong mulls the possibility of further reclamation projects to expand its limited land area, writes Keith Wallis

Gone are the boom days of the 1990s when 75% of the world’s dredging fleet was working in Hong Kong to create about 1,500 ha of land for the new international airport and related projects.

Instead, public opposition backed up by a harbour protection law against future harbour infill projects imposed a virtual moratorium on dredging and reclamation schemes in Victoria Harbour.

That ban was only lifted after several court cases clarified the law on harbour reclamation, which is now only allowed “when there is an overriding public need”.

Yet despite this clarification, public opposition persists. This in turn makes the government very sensitive to future reclamation projects, including those outside the inner harbour area covered by the harbour protection ordinance.

At present just one reclamation scheme is going ahead, the third phase of a project in the Central business district. Van Oord is part of a consortium that is forming about 18 ha of new land between the Star Ferry piers and the convention and exhibition centre near the Wan Chai district.

An adjacent project to reclaim land from Wan Chai to Causeway Bay has stalled after a court case that the government lost. As a result, officials are redrawing the reclamation plans.

Officials are also mulling a smaller reclamation scheme at the former Kai Tak airport, although the plan will be limited to capping an area of contaminated mud close inshore to a heavily industrialised area of the city in the Kowloon district.

Outside the harbour limits, government officials have proposed reclaiming about 112 ha from the sea at Siu Ho Wan on Lantau Island, about 10 km from the new airport, to create land for a new logistics park.

Longer term, industry insiders believe there will be a need to reclaim about 400 ha of land to create a third runway at Hong Kong international airport. The Airport Authority has already reserved the required area in the government’s planning blueprint.

Further reclamation is also expected to be carried out on Lantau Island if plans go ahead for a US$3bn bridge spanning the Peal River estuary between Hong Kong, Macau and Zhuhai.

While reclamation contractors wait for projects to move in Hong Kong, there are likely to be more opportunities in the former Portuguese colony of Macau after the government announced plans to increase Macau's land area by 13% over the next few years.

hkskyline

December 16th, 2005, 03:47 AM

Harbour panel backs Central bypass
13 December 2005
South China Morning Post

Harbour advisers have given their blessing for the construction of a waterfront road to ease traffic jams in Central and Wan Chai.

But they said the government should come up with sustainable transport management measures to resolve traffic problems in the long run, such as adjusting tolls for the cross-harbour tunnels and controlling development along the Eastern Corridor.

Members of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee's Wan Chai development review subgroup decided the Central-Wan Chai bypass should be built either in the form of a tunnel or a flyover.

An earlier suggestion to build at ground level was rejected because it would require extensive reclamation and the reclaimed land would largely be used by roads instead of to enhance the waterfront environment.

Building a tunnel or a flyover would require reclamation off Eastern district. A consultant will now study the extent of reclamation needed for each option, and the public will then be consulted.

Initial estimates suggest that a flyover would require less reclamation than a tunnel but would have an adverse visual impact at the waterfront.

The government advisers had earlier refused to endorse plans to build a Central-Wan Chai bypass. But an expert panel reported that a bypass was needed, while pointing out it was not a long-term fix for congestion. It said a bypass alone could not end traffic jams since every road had a finite capacity.

"The growth of traffic demand over a decade would overrun its capacity," the report said.

The subgroup ran a public consultation exercise early this year in which it invited people to give their opinions on the future use of the harbour off Causeway Bay. The subgroup is now analysing the views it gathered to prepare for the second stage of consultation.

Many of the submissions received from companies and groups supported the tunnel suggestion. Among those favouring that option were Swire Properties, the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club and the Business and Professionals Federation.

Hardy Lok Kung-chin, director of the Society for Protection of the Harbour, stressed that the subgroup must keep open the option of building a flyover.

Greg Wong Chak-yan, president of the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers, said: "We should always bear in mind the possibility of legal action against reclamation. To avoid this, we should include the flyover suggestion and let the public choose."

hkskyline

December 19th, 2005, 03:56 AM

Stop and rethink Tamar

A new harbor protection coalition is demanding the government abandon its controversial Tamar redevelopment plans.

Monday, December 19, 2005
Hong Kong Standard

A new harbor protection coalition is demanding the government abandon its controversial Tamar redevelopment plans.

Members of the Stop and Rethink alliance said in a statement Sunday that the government should not rush into "schemes it has plainly not thought through."

Opposition to the government's HK$6 billion, 4.2-hectare site Tamar redevelopment plan has come from politicians, business leaders and conservation groups since the administration resurrected the proposal, which was shelved in November 2003 amid the tough economic climate following the SARS outbreak.

They argued that the government's plan to turn Tamar into its headquarters and house the Legislative Council will be a waste of prime land, which could be auctioned for several billion dollars. Any redevelopment will also ruin the harborfront.

Opponents have said that Kai Tak is better suited for a government headquarters.

The new alliance presented its views before the Legislative Council at a special meeting of the planning, lands and works panel on Saturday.

The panel later passed a non-binding motion urging the government to review its proposals for Tamar and the Central harborfront and to conduct a review with public consultation before taking further steps.

Paul Zimmerman, convenor of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District, told the panel about problems with the current plans.

He also showed photographs of harborfronts in cities in the mainland, Taiwan, Europe, United States and Australia to demonstrate what Hong Kong can achieve with the last available land around Victoria Harbour.

According to Zimmerman, legislators were "quite surprised after we presented maps and photographs."

He added: "I have a feeling this is the first time they have seen a comprehensive overview of the plan.

"This is really the last opportunity left and the government should reconsider the proposal."

Zimmerman said the motion should serve as a warning to the government that it may not be given the go-ahead by Legco to fund the project.

"Obviously, legislators won't approve the financial arrangement of the site if the government can't convince them," Zimmerman said.

He called on the government to recognize that, after decades of reclamation, a new process is required to fix Hong Kong's urban, transport and harbor planning.

Members of the new alliance include the Civic Exchange, Clear The Air, Designing Hong Kong Harbour District, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Harbour, Save Our Shorelines, Society for Protection of the Harbour, WWF Hong Kong and prominent individuals.

The alliance also voiced concerns over traffic congestion and the negative environmental impact the development will have.

According to a recent report by the Transport Department, the development will add almost 10 million square feet of gross floor area and will attract an additional 7,623 vehicle trips per hour to Central. Even if all the proposed roads are built, in particular the super highway known as P2, traffic will be saturated again by 2016.

"Government lands policy for the area in and near Tamar, which will move tens of thousands more jobs into the Central waterfront area, strains transport to the breaking point, undermines environmental objectives and ignores sound principles of urban planning. Please, let us not be fooled again by government assurances that this fix will finally solve the problem. It will not," said Bill Barron, of the Institute for the Environment of the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology.

The chairman of Save Our Shorelines, John Bowden, added: "The new proposed road capacity is the same as in the metro plan developed in the mid- 1980s. However, occupation and density have been reduced significantly. Then why do we need the same roads? We should question the proposed overcapacity and overprovision of surface roads in the Central area. Stop and think. This is why we need a full review of transport provisions in light of reduced development plans and projections. The government should maximize land-use for public open space and harbor- oriented land uses, not for redundant road capacity."

The alliance also said air pollution in Central will worsen if the new government offices are built at the Tamar site.

Air quality expert Jimmy Fung of Clear the Air said the government's pollution model "pretends Central is a flat surface," and ignores the fact that pollution gets trapped by tall buildings.

In other words, pollution predictions on the Tamar site and the Central Reclamation Phase III were based on 1999 data plugged into a prediction model that assumes Central has no buildings.

This means that official figures seriously underestimate the pollution levels - air pollution could be three times higher than predicted by the Environmental Protection Department's 2001 environmental impact assessment report. "We will not accept anything from the government regarding the Tamar site until the Environmental Impact Assessment ... is updated with recent, actual air pollution data using a newer, proper model," Fung said.

"The time needed to produce such a report would only take about three months and cost HK$300,000. There is no need for the government to rush in proceeding the Tamar development."

Markus Shaw, chairman of WWF, added: "The issue is not a small matter. Since this will be the last reclamation along the Central waterfront, we only have one chance to get it right: we are literally planning a `harborfront for a thousand years."'

Despite opposition, the government maintains Tamar is the most suitable site for its headquarters and the Legislative Council. The project is expected to begin in 2007 and be completed by 2010.

hkskyline

December 21st, 2005, 04:57 AM

Opening move for Tamar contract
21 December 2005
South China Morning Post

Interested parties have been invited to apply for prequalification for the contract on the planned government headquarters on the Tamar site, despite lawmakers' opposition to the plan.

A government spokesman said yesterday the main purpose of the prequalification for the $4 billion design-and-build contract was to identify up to five applicants with proven design, managerial, financial and technical capabilities.

"The prequalified applicants will be invited to submit tenders for the contract but prior to that we will, in the second quarter of 2006, consult the Legislative Council for funding approval," the spokesman said.

But Democratic party legislator James To Kun-sun said of the move: "It shows that the government does not respect the Legislative Council at all. It is of no use. At the end of the day, the government must come to Legco to ask us for the funding. We might not approve it at the time."

The contract will cover the government complex, Legco complex and the Civic Place proposed for the Tamar site.

The spokesman said: "The concept design should illustrate integration of the Tamar development with its surrounding areas,'' adding that Civic Place would comprise about half of the site and would be designed as a public leisure and recreational open space.

The project is expected to start in 2007 for completion in 2010, the spokesman said.

"The eligibility criteria are laid out in the prequalification document. Interested parties may apply from now until March 14," he said.

The document states that the design for the proposed development should take account of the goals and planning principles for the harbour devised by the Town Planning Board and Harbourfront Enhancement Committee.

hkskyline

December 21st, 2005, 04:03 PM

The Tamar site question - can people power prevail?
The future of this contentious piece of prime land rests in the hands of a partisan Town Planning Board
16 December 2005
South China Morning Post

The government is determined to build new headquarters at the Tamar site, but there are many who want to block the plan. The campaign to stop the development has heated up debate on the future of the former British naval station HMS Tamar, as well as the existing government headquarters on Lower Albert Road.

Among the opponents, the Society for Protection of the Harbour and the Action Group on Protection of the Harbour are probably the most vocal.

The Action Group has filed a rezoning request to the Town Planning Board to turn the four-hectare waterfront plot into a park. The application will be heard today.

The group argues that Tamar is the last piece of prime, undeveloped waterfront land and should be used as a public open space. It questions the government's decision, which it says will eventually turn the promised open space in front of the new headquarters into a piece of uninviting real estate too ugly for public use.

The group also says building new government headquarters on the site will worsen traffic congestion in Central, after a Transport Department study estimated the development would increase average traffic flow by 800 cars an hour.

"Even the proposed Central-Wan Chai bypass would not solve the problem of increased traffic flow," said Kwok Ka-ki, a founder of the Action Group and an independent legislator. "The Transport Department says saturation would be reached by 2016. Will the government propose reclamation again to solve the problem?"

Mr Kwok is pessimistic about the board's decision, saying: "[The board] is chaired by an official; all members are appointed and two-thirds of them are somehow connected to property developers. It is not accountable to the public, but I shall exhaust all possible means to pursue my cause."

Under the government's plan, Tamar will house the Legislative Council, the Executive Council, the chief executive and his office, as well as all the bureaus. At least four high-rises will be built on the site. According to the statutory plan, at least two hectares of land facing the waterfront will be turned into an open space for the public.

As the administrative wing is still researching the needs of various bureaus, it cannot provide concrete information, even on the floor space needed.

Since the government wants to save time, it will award the design and construction contract to one contractor. The design of the new headquarters is another unknown.

Before Mr Kwok and his group entered the fray, the battle against reclamation and land use in Central was dominated by the Society for Protection of the Harbour and its founder, Winston Chu Ka-sun.

Five years ago, Mr Chu commissioned Sir Peter Hall, a professor from the Bartlett School of Planning at University College London to compile arguments on reserving Tamar for public space.

The report, called A New Vision for Tamar, says: "[As] the land at the centrepiece of the planning area, the entire concept of the Central waterfront development depends critically upon it, and without it the entire scheme fails. A decision on the Tamar site cannot and should not be taken in isolation, but in the context of a decision on the wider Central waterfront development scheme."

It also says: "Hong Kong lacks the classic local urban parks that are characteristic of world cities such as London, Paris and even New York. In Hong Kong, the interests of pedestrians have been consistently ignored in favour of road traffic, despite the obvious potential for creating largely vehicle-free zones in areas such as Central and Tsim Sha Tsui.

"To escape this, the Hong Kong people have embraced an air-conditioned culture and a series of movement networks above ground level, leaving the ground level disconnected to new users. This is particularly true of the waterfront, which is cut off from the commercial and residential districts behind it by very unfriendly vehicular thoroughfares crossed by bridges."

The report concludes that proper planning for Tamar provides a golden opportunity to address the problem and give the public access to the waterfront.

"The site of HMS Tamar has important associations with Hong Kong's colonial past, as does its position on the harbour. This is potentially significant in terms of the need for Hong Kong to rediscover its heritage; and an important source of tourism," it says.

Mr Chu paid $548,000 for the research. "Nothing has changed over the past five years. The arguments are still valid."

He said he was optimistic about the harbour's future. "Before July 1, 2003, I was pessimistic about the future of the harbour. After half a million people marched to demonstrate against the subversion law, the government eventually realised it needed to listen to the public. Now I'm optimistic.

"To save the harbour, the people of Hong Kong must come out and voice their objection."

While all the attention is focused on the future of Tamar, there are also voices calling on the government to preserve its existing headquarters.

The Hong Kong Institute of Planners advocates small government headquarters at Tamar, housing only the Legislative Council, the Executive Council, the chief executive and his office. It wants most of the land to be performance venues and parkland for public enjoyment.

The institute also wants to see the existing headquarters at Lower Albert Road preserved.

Patrick Hase, a historian, said that the whole hill at Lower Albert Road and Garden Road had been set aside for government use shortly after the British landed in Hong Kong, in 1841. Since then the administration, the army, judiciary and the church were located west of Garden Road.

Mr Hase said St John's Cathedral was funded by the Hong Kong government, even though the Anglican church had never been the dominant church in the city. Hence land for the cathedral, and for Bishop's House and its attached school, were found on Government Hill.

Above the Colonial Secretariat, the land was set aside for the Botanical Gardens, another government project dating from early colonial days. Below the secretariat, the old Hilton hotel site, now the Cheung Kong Centre, was originally a gun battery, and the Beaconsfield House site was also used for government purposes.

Pong Yuen-yee, Institute of Town Planners vice-president, said: "There are many historic buildings on the hill, such as Government House, the Court of Final Appeal, the tram station and the British and US consulates-general. We oppose selling the government headquarters site for commercial or residential development."

Ms Pong said the hill was dotted with mature trees, and rated high as a must-see destination for tourists. "The trees will surely be gone if the government hands over the land to property developers."

The institute proposed the area between Robinson Road, the Zoological and Botanical Gardens to Battery Path and Cotton Tree Drive should be turned into a cultural heritage district.

"Because of development, we have bulldozed countless historic buildings in the past," Ms Pong said. "We shouldn't repeat the same mistakes, sacrificing our history. Money can't buy history."

hkskyline

December 24th, 2005, 06:21 PM

The reclamation has begun!

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051004/OCT04-S01-199.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051004/OCT04-S01-201.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051004/OCT04-S01-202.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051004/OCT04-S01-211.jpg

Duopolis

December 25th, 2005, 12:59 PM

Nice schots! Kowloon skyline looks great! But Hanoi Road is growing so slow...

SUNNI

December 25th, 2005, 01:14 PM

yeah great pics;)
and another redevelopment to look forward to in 2006 :)

raymond_tung88

December 25th, 2005, 04:27 PM

Can someone post a plan of what the shoreline of Hong Kong Island will look like after reclamation? Also, I'd just like to know if there is going to be reclamation in Causeway Bay...

Duopolis

December 25th, 2005, 07:54 PM

^^ Me too. Also, I wonder is there any other 200+m projects in Tsim Sha Tsui (core or East) like Hanoi Road.

Mosaic

December 26th, 2005, 08:30 AM

Great shot, nice looking. How much is the cost for reclamation land like this in HK.?

Aboveday

December 29th, 2005, 02:07 PM

http://www.archsd.gov.hk/tamar/site_photos/Tamar_Large.jpg

hkskyline

December 30th, 2005, 06:02 PM

December 20, 2005
Government Press Release
Transport experts back bypass option

There is a compelling transport need to build the Central-Wan Chai Bypass, Transport Advisory Committee Chairperson Teresa Cheng says, adding toll roads can complement, but cannot replace, the link.

The committee discussed today a transport expert panel report on the sustainable transport planning for the northern shore of Hong Kong Island, including the necessity of the bypass.

Members noted the expert panel's affirmation of the transport need for constructing the bypass and its planned slip roads to improve the reliability of the street network as well as tackling deteriorating traffic conditions in the area.

The bypass is the last, yet to be built, section of a strategic highway running along the northern shore of Hong Kong Island. It will connect the existing flyover near Rumsey Street in Central to the existing Island Eastern Corridor. When the bypass is in place, vehicles commuting between the Eastern District and the western parts of the city, such as Tuen Mun and the airport, can use the strategic highway without having to pass through the busy districts of Causeway Bay, Wan Chai and Central as at present.

Road P2 a key interim measure

Members backed the bypass' slip roads at the Convention & Exhibition Centre area and at Victoria Park Road-Gloucester Road-Hing Fat Street to magnify its benefits.

It recognised the need for Road P2 as an important interim measure to address traffic congestion in the Central area before the bypass comes about, and suggests measures to improve traffic conditions along the east-west corridor on the northern shore of Hong Kong Island.

"On road pricing, we agree with the expert panel's view that without the provision of proper infrastructure, road pricing alone cannot serve as a panacea to the traffic problem. Road pricing can complement, but cannot replace, the Central-Wan Chai Bypass," Ms Cheng said.

On the progress of the measures to enhance road and public light bus safety, Ms Cheng said attitude and behaviour has a great bearing on road safety, adding that education and publicity will instill in drivers a good driving attitude.

hkskyline

December 31st, 2005, 09:13 AM

Opinion : Legco motion calling for Tamar review ignored
26 December 2005
South China Morning Post

After a year of hard work by more than a dozen groups of environmentalists, in trying to provide the people of Hong Kong with a good living environment and quality of life, a motion - calling for a review of the planning for the Central waterfront, including the Tamar site - was passed unanimously on December 17 by the Legislative Council's panel on planning, lands and works.

But it came as a bombshell to learn from your article, "Opening move for Tamar contract" (December 21), that the government had simply ignored the motion, and is still proceeding with the Tamar project.

In doing so, the government is showing blatant disrespect for Legco, the democratic process and the rule of law.

The motion said, in part, that in view of the government's undertakings to develop Hong Kong into a world-class city, and to provide a vibrant and beautiful Central waterfront for the enjoyment of the community, the panel urged it to comply with the recommendations made by the Town Planning Board on August 5, and an earlier motion by the panel, by reviewing the Tamar development project and the planned land uses for the waterfront.

The motion asked the government to consult the public before taking forward any further project and planning work, and also to suspend the tender procedure on the development of the Tamar site, pending the review and public consultation. It proposed that a subcommittee be established to review the planning for the Central waterfront, including Tamar.

In the recent proposal for political reform, the government has been making high-sounding statements about the importance of Legco and the democratic process. Yet in reality, the government only values Legco when it supports its policies. The government's hypocritical attitude is disgraceful and insulting, both to Legco and the public.

There is therefore a long way to go before Hong Kong can achieve an enlightened government which will truly represent its people.

WINSTON K. S. CHU, former chairman, Society for Protection of the Harbour

hkskyline

December 31st, 2005, 06:30 PM

An uninterrupted harbour view
24 December 2005
South China Morning Post

The plan to build a new government headquarters and legislature on the Tamar site is being supported by the chief executive, many politicians, businesspeople and professionals. The administration has also tried to convince the public that the project is vital, creating jobs in the hard-hit construction industry.

Yet, many others have expressed their concerns on the subject, presented studies that have been ignored, and proposed alternatives. The debate continues, while the government pushes the proposal at full speed. It is difficult for the public to fully understand the issues involved, as the vital information is either missing or difficult to find.

So we should ask: do we want to preserve the view of our harbour from The Peak for future generations? Do we want a sustainable and responsible approach for the proposed Tamar development?

Do we want a vibrant, culturally diversified and inclusive public civic space at Tamar, with easy accessibility to the harbourfront? Do we want to bring the people to the harbour and the harbour to the people?

Further, we need to know: do we want to preserve our historical and cultural heritage buildings and invaluable green space surrounding the existing Central Government Offices? And do we really want sustainable development for Hong Kong for our future generations? The answers should be clear.

Since 1991, the government has recommended that height controls be introduced to protect the view from The Peak. Yet, little has been done to implement this.

Similarly, the Urban Design Guidelines say that developments should not reduce the amount of harbour water surface visible from The Peak. In the government's own words: "There is no possibility of compromise. Either height [controls are] adopted, or the laissez-faire approach is maintained and the view to the ridgeline [including the harbour view from The Peak] will become obscured over the next few years." The guidelines also called for a stepped approach to building heights for developments along waterfront areas.

Unfortunately, the guidelines are not yet law. So, sadly, we have been witnessing the continued obscuring of the views - of the ridge of hills on the Kowloon side, and the harbour - by developers. But how can we blame them, as they are just trying to maximise profits? Not only has the government failed to introduce statutory controls to enforce the guidelines, but it is taking the lead in ignoring them. In November, I asked the government to release to the public the visual impact assessment of the proposed Tamar development, but it has not responded. My own study indicates that the Tamar project would significantly reduce the water surface area visible from The Peak.

Redeveloping the Central Government Offices will require removing all the trees in and around the compound. The project will remove part of Hong Kong's heritage from our collective memory. To meet its ambitious land-sale target, it will have to build huge commercial blocks that are incompatible with the setting, violating all urban-design guidelines. And the additional traffic could not possibly be absorbed. This, and the traffic generated by the Central reclamations, would accelerate the saturation of the proposed Central-Wan Chai bypass.

In view of the adverse social, environmental and traffic impacts, is it time to fundamentally review the land use and density of the whole region from a sustainable development point of view?Steve Chan Yiu-fai is an independent member of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee

hkskyline

December 31st, 2005, 10:12 PM

http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/images/multimedia_gallery/harbour_boundary.jpg

The past :
http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/images/multimedia_gallery/pic23388.jpg

Rendering of Central waterfront :
http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/images/multimedia_gallery/srbk029u.jpg

http://www.hplb.gov.hk/reclamation/images/CRIIIwaterfront.jpg

SJM

December 31st, 2005, 10:24 PM

I like that last rendering, fits in very nicely to the surroundings!

hkskyline

January 3rd, 2006, 06:56 AM

Ip in Tamar jobs drive for construction woes

The HK$6 billion Tamar Site project will help alleviate higher-than-average unemployment in the construction sector, Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip said in pushing for legislative approval for the development by 2007.

Michael Ng
Hong Kong Standard
Tuesday, January 03, 2006

The HK$6 billion Tamar Site project will help alleviate higher-than-average unemployment in the construction sector, Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip said in pushing for legislative approval for the development by 2007.

But a unionist in the construction industry said Ip's plan alone would fail to meet the urgent needs of thousands of jobless workers.

Ip said in a radio interview that with more than 30 new hotels completed last year and "a few dozen more" to be built in the next few years, construction unemployment has already fallen from a peak of 20 percent early last year to 11 percent in November.

He hoped the new SAR government headquarters and Legislative Council project at the Tamar site, if endorsed by late 2007, and other public works in the territory will employ some of the 30,000 jobless construction workers.

However, Choi Chun-wa, chairman of the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union, said that along with those out of work, another third of construction workers are under- employed. Immediate relief measures were more urgent than a long-term plan, he said.

"Secretary Ip needs to be pragmatic. His plan is to be realized in 2007, but how about 2006? What will these unemployed workers do for a living this year? Are you asking them to wait and starve for another 365 days?"

Although the government is willing to lower the height of the new government complex from 180 meters to 130-160 meters to preserve views of the harbor, environmentalists are still worried about potential pollution and visual blight caused by the project.

The government must still lobby for the support of the pro-government Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, which insists the new complex should be built at the site of the former airport at Kai Tak.

At the same time, the Democratic Party is worried about the project's high density and visual impact on the surrounding environment.

Legco's subcommittee to review the planning for the central waterfront will start discussing the development in its first meeting next Friday.

Turning to general employment, Ip said the SAR's jobless rate has fallen from 6.1 percent early last year to 5.3 percent by November and that he is "prudently optimistic" about employment prospects for this year.

But he warned the local economy is still vulnerable to uncertainties such as high crude oil prices and high interest rates.

"We will maintain a sense of crisis and tailor different employment assistance programs according to changes in the employment market."

The DAB is a strong opponent of the Tamar redevelopment plan.

It claims Tamar, which is a prime waterfront site, would generate an estimated income of HK$6.65 billion for the government in an auction of land for commercial use.

The party also says that construction of a new government headquarters at the site of the old airport can be completed by 2012, which is only three years later than that envisaged for the Tamar site.

hkskyline

January 5th, 2006, 10:44 PM

Harbour watchdog closes its office Founder Winston Chu to retire, staffing levels are reduced
6 January 2006
South China Morning Post

Hong Kong's biggest harbour protection group has closed its office in Central, and founder Winston Chu Ka-sun is planning to retire later this year.

The Society for Protection of the Harbour, which took the government to court in 2003 over reclamation, has also reduced its staff to just one part-time worker.

The move has been viewed by other harbour advisers as a scaling back in the society's operations following the government's commitment not to reclaim land from Victoria Harbour after the legal battle.

The advisers also said the developments could change the landscape of the harbour protection campaign.

Both Mr Chu and the society's chairwoman, Christine Loh Kung-wai, said the latest moves were just a change in strategy.

The aim of the society, formed in 1995, is to stop the government from reclaiming the harbour for land sales. It rented an office in Wyndham Street, Central, and hired two full-time staff.

The office lease did not expire until April but the group has already returned the premises to the landlord. From January 1, its registered address switched to Mr Chu's law firm in Admiralty and it has hired only one part-time staff member, with its campaign manager, Angus Ho Hon-wai, resigning to join the private sector.

Mr Chu, 65, said he would retire by the end of the year and concentrate on writing a book, Saving Victoria Harbour, detailing his fight against reclamation. He stepped down as chairman in October 2003 after receiving threatening letters.

"Most of our money is from public donations," Mr Chu said. "We must make good use of the money. As our campaign manager decided to leave, we took the opportunity to restructure the office. We still have many meetings to discuss our way forward but we don't have much administration work to do.

"In the past, Hong Kong had only one group that cared about the harbour. But after we took the government to court, many people realised they needed to act, and act quickly and decisively, or the harbour would be gone forever. Now we are more a co-ordinator in the anti-reclamation movement."

Mr Chu said the Harbour Business Forum, a coalition of 106 of the city's largest companies and business groups, including HSBC, Jardine Matheson, Kerry Group, Wharf (Holdings) and the Swire Group, shared much of the society's previous work.

Ms Loh said: "By saving on rent, staff and other utilities, we will have more resources for campaigning. It is going to be a long and winding road. We will have a forum on the Central waterfront next month - it takes money."

Greg Wong Chak-yan, who represents the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers on the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee, said: "The society did a great job on protecting the harbour. If it had never existed, I'm afraid our harbour [would be] long gone. But it {hellip} cornered the government and forced it to commit to no more reclamation. The society doesn't have much of a job to do now. It is natural for it to scale back the operation."

He also said the society's uncompromising opposition to reclamation had hampered it from playing a more active role in harbour planning, since there were other new groups that were more prepared to work with the government in efforts to improve the waterfront.

hkskyline

January 24th, 2006, 11:40 PM

Activists gearing up for action on Tamar
23 January 2006
South China Morning Post

Harbour activists are gearing up for a fresh campaign against plans for a new government headquarters at Tamar.

Citizen Envisioning @Harbour convenor Albert Lai Kwong-tak said a number of civic groups are planning to work together to block the government from going ahead with the Tamar proposal.

He said civic groups include Designing Hong Kong Harbour District and the Society for Protection of the Harbour.

"It is going to be one of the rare unified actions between civic groups and the business sector. We are determined to start a public debate on the subject. We have strong reservations against the plan," Mr Lai said.

They will try to raise their objections in the legislature on the subcommittee tasked to review planning of the Central waterfront.

Independent legislator Kwok Ka-ki hopes the subcommittee will become a platform for the public to raise concerns about the government's plan.

"We also hope the government can provide more information on the proposal. The government wants Legco to approve funding for the project, but it is unwilling to provide information," he said.

The government wants to build a new headquarters at Tamar and has started a prequalification test in which construction companies can submit designs, and technical and financial capabilities.

It plans to consult the Legislative Council and seek funding approval for the Tamar project in the second quarter of this year.

Mr Kwok and Hong Kong Institute of Architects' vice-president Vincent Ng Wing-shun have given an audio interview on their views on the government's plan to redevelop the Tamar site.

FM 2258

January 25th, 2006, 10:11 AM

http://www.archsd.gov.hk/tamar/site_photos/Tamar_Large.jpg

That looks nice. Interesting to see how far they'll push back the waterfront. I think a supertall communications/restuarant/observation tower would be a great addition to the site. A tower won't really obstruct the harbor view for other building occupants.

hkskyline

January 30th, 2006, 06:03 AM

Tycoons want discussions with Tsang to boost harbour planning
23 January 2006
South China Morning Post

A group of leading tycoons wants a meeting with Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen to urge him to improve planning in Victoria Harbour.

Leaders of the Harbour Business Forum, a coalition formed by 120 leading companies and business groups, have decided to ask Mr Tsang for a meeting after the Lunar New Year to raise their concerns over developments along the harbour front.

Hongkong Bank chief Vincent Cheng Hoi-chuen, and leaders from Standard Chartered Bank, Jardine Matheson and the Swire Group are understood to be among those who would attend.

The group was formed in June last year. Its patron members also include Sun Hung Kai Properties, Wharf (Holdings), Citic Pacific, the Kadoorie Group, the Kerry Group, BNP Paribas and the Lai Sun Group.

Paul Zimmerman, an executive committee member of the coalition, said a meeting was being arranged and the group would make a presentation to the administration.

"Their message is to ask the government to protect our harbour, to have some good planning and to get somebody to be in charge of the harbour. The meeting will not be about the development of a particular site."

A source from the business coalition said the companies were mainly concerned with huge "ground scrapers" - commercial developments on the new Central reclamation area. Some other corporations were also worried that the new government headquarters on the Tamar site could be too large.

Up to 18.73 hectares will be reclaimed off the Central waterfront when work is completed, with commercial sites taking about five hectares. A cluster of commercial buildings up to 10 storeys high will be built near Statue Square.

"We will be more vocal if the chief executive ignores our demands for good harbour planning," Mr Zimmerman said.

The coalition is concerned over the lack of a long-term vision for the design of the harbour and harbourfront districts. It is also unhappy over the lack of co-ordination between 17 government departments involved in harbour developments.

Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen Ming-yeung and his bureau's permanent secretary, Rita Lau Ng Wai-lan, made a presentation on the Central reclamation plan to leaders of the coalition in September. But they failed to secure the coalition's support. If a meeting takes place next month it would coincide with two other harbour events. A Legislative Council subcommittee will begin meeting in February to review planning of the Central waterfront, including the Tamar site.

The Town Planning Board will also examine a request from lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki to turn the Tamar site into a park.

hkskyline

February 5th, 2006, 11:56 PM

Parties unite in demand for Tamar report
Study results vital to debate on whether government headquarters move should go ahead, says lawmaker
6 February 2006
South China Morning Post

Political parties are united in demanding the release of the confidential report that says it is feasible to keep the government headquarters on the present site.

The chairman of the Democratic Party, Lee Wing-tat, said the party would press for disclosure of the report and condemned the information being put out by the government as "sketchy".

Article 45 Concern Group lawmaker Alan Leong Kah-kit said the government should release all studies it had made about resolving overcrowding at the government headquarters.

Choy So-yuk, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said: "The government should not hide any information from the public."

The parties have expressed different views on the project during the debate over the Tamar plan but all three have called for a new round of consultation.

The Democratic Party has opposed the move outright, the DAB has proposed that the headquarters be moved to Kai Tak and the barrister-led Article 45 Group has called for a comprehensive review of planning in Central.

"We will press the government to release every bit of relevant information," Mr Lee said.

"The data the government is releasing now is sketchy. For example, it has never explained why all bureaus need to be in the government headquarters."

He said he saw no reason why offices could not be moved to private premises while the Central site was being renovated.

Mr Leong said the study was important to the issue and must be released.

"The community has changed. The people of Hong Kong do not want to see every inch of their land go to auction in exchange for money," he said. "The government must let the public know the rationale of their decision so it must release all relevant information.

"Government Hill is green and tranquil; the public doesn't want to see it filled by skyscrapers.

"If the government thinks that Legco lacks space, it should just move Legco to Tamar. But why do they have to move the government headquarters there?"

Ms Choy said it was "common sense" that Tamar was "not the one and only solution". When a decision was made about whether or where to move the headquarters, "things such as its impact on traffic, noise pollution and the environment issues should be taken into account".

"We should have a balance sheet and check whether society will gain or lose because of this development," she said.

hkskyline

February 6th, 2006, 05:28 AM

維港築新海堤減輕波浪
06/02/2006

http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/news/20060206/img/sn07020605_big.jpg

【本報訊】維多利亞港近年愈來愈大浪，土木工程拓展署高級工程師彭偉成指出，由於港內海上交通頻繁以致「船浪」續年加強。為解決大浪問題，該署決定引入新式的「多孔重力式消波海堤」，減低風浪及船浪的反射波高度可高達五成，目前正進行填海的中環及灣仔區將會採用這種新設計海堤。

反射波高度減五成
彭偉成解釋，維港的內港波浪起伏主因是海上交通日趨頻繁、高速船隻行駛時容易產生波浪，而現有的垂直海堤把大部分波浪反射回港內，令海面上的船隻十分顛簸。為減輕大浪問題，近年按研究報告的建議引入新式消波海堤。

新海堤的設計會在防波堤外牆上設置更多圓孔，讓海浪進出堤內的消波室，新海堤外形有如蜂巢。消波室的作用是吸收海浪的能量，減少反射回海面，海堤的背部安裝了扶壁，加強消波室的穩定性。該署亦在○二及○三年，分別在青衣島北岸及西九龍填海區興建這種新海堤作出測試，證實新海堤可減少海浪的反射波高度達五成，當中青衣新海堤全長七十米，建造費達五百萬元。

彭偉成謂，現正進行填海的中環、灣仔區，岸邊亦正興建一道設計類同的海堤，並將外牆上的圓孔改為直條坑紋，加上海事處定期調節港口船速限制，維港的波浪可望減少。研究又顯示，波浪的高度會隨維港內船舶活動而改變，波浪最高的時段是早上七時至八時及下午五時至六時；若把維港分為小、中、大及強浪四個波浪區域，維港中區至灣仔一帶屬中浪區，波高約三十至四十厘米。http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/img/endmarker.gif

Mosaic

February 6th, 2006, 09:25 AM

I was wondering how expensive it is to do land reclamation.

hkskyline

February 7th, 2006, 04:33 AM

No "secret report" on Tamar Development Project
Monday, February 6, 2006
Government Press Release

A Government spokesman today (February 6) dismissed as misleading a newspaper report that the Government has been withholding "a secret report" recommending in-situ redevelopment of the existing Central Government Offices (CGO) and Murray Building.

"It is a totally unfounded allegation that the Government has been withholding any such analysis from the Legislative Council (LegCo) and the public.

"Throughout the process of consultation and deliberations with the Legislative Council, we have furnished detailed information as to the rationale, justifications and various considerations regarding the Tamar development project.

"In the Legislative Council Brief issued on April 30, 2002 explaining the Government's decision to develop the new Central Government Complex and Legislative Council Complex at Tamar, we set out the comparison of the Tamar site option and the in-situ redevelopment of the CGO and Murray Building.

"We highlighted that having regard to the planning concept, demand and supply of Grade A office, timeframe and operational efficiency, the Tamar site is a better option than in-situ redevelopment. Compared with in-situ redevelopment, the proposed development at Tamar would be completed at least four years earlier," the spokesman said.

Since early 90's, the Government had been looking into options trying to cope with the growing demand of office space in the CGO and Murray Building. Previous research on in-situ redevelopment showed that while it might be technically feasible to redevelop the CGO, there would be significant constraints. In particular, the required decantation of an interim reprovisioning for the staff of CGO and Murray Building would cause serious disruption to the operation of the Government Secretariat.

There are also concerns on site limitations, such as presence of a large number of mature trees, and preservation of historical features, for instance, character of the open space outside St. John's Cathedral and Court of Final Appeal, Battery Path etc. Furthermore, the in-situ redevelopment could not resolve the accommodation needs of the Legislative Council.

"Since the announcement on re-launching the Tamar development project in October 2005, the Government has been in close consultation with the LegCo on the details of the Tamar development project. We have reiterated the justifications for the Tamar site and its relative merits over the option of in-situ redevelopment of the CGO and Murray Building," he added.

To recapitulate on the background, the Tamar site was first earmarked for reprovisioning of the Government Secretariat in January 1998. The existing uses of the Tamar site, i.e. half for "Government, Institution or Community" use and half for "Open Space" use, have since gone through the due and statutory public consultation and planning process before the approval of the relevant Outline Zoning Plan in 2000.

It has been the planning objective to develop the Tamar site into the civic core of Hong Kong, comprising the new Central Government Complex, new Legislative Council Complex and a civic place as core development components.

The Tamar development project would address the acute office space shortage problem long faced by the Government Secretariat and the LegCo. The proposed development of around half of the Tamar site (i.e. 2 hectares) into a civic place would enable the vibrancy and public enjoyment at the waterfront, the spokesman added.

Skybean

February 7th, 2006, 04:40 AM

Wow. Judging by the pic, the reclaimation efforts are quite extensive. What was once a mighty harbour may dwindle into a slow trickling lake. Hopefully they will not go much futher.

Rachmaninov

February 7th, 2006, 12:26 PM

I believe no further reclaimations are going to take place in that waterfront.

hkskyline

February 8th, 2006, 09:19 PM

Bid to spill Tamar papers
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Several lawmakers, frustrated by the lack of transparency in the Tamar development project, are expected to reject a government staffing proposal today in an effort to coerce the administration into disclosing "secret" documents.
The government will seek approval from a Legco subcommittee of the Finance Committee for the immediate creation of two new administrative posts, one of which will oversee and coordinate implementation of the Tamar project.

"I will oppose the proposal, and I believe all legislators should oppose it as well," said lawmaker and Action Group on Protection of the Harbor convenor Kwok Ka-ki.

"I plan to be quite harsh in demanding that the government explain why it wants to create a new post before it has completed discussion on Tamar."

Choy So-yuk, a member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, also confirmed that party representatives would not support the government proposal.

The subcommittee meeting comes two days after the government denied media reports that it was withholding a "secret report" which allegedly recommended the redevelopment of the existing Central Government Offices in lieu of beginning new construction at Tamar.

In an official statement Monday, a government representative called the media reports "misleading" and insisted that redevelopment of the existing offices at Lower Albert Road and Murray Building would be impractical due to "office space constraints" and the "presence of a large number of mature trees."

The representative also said the government had previously informed the Legislative Council that, compared with redevelopment of the existing site, the development at Tamar could be completed at least four years earlier, by 2010.

However Kwok, who said he will only settle for a "mature, well-informed decision" regarding the site, insisted no such information had been revealed and demanded that the government disclose its source.

"They did not tell us about the four- year difference until after the media reports came out," Kwok said. "I believe they probably did conduct a feasibility study, but they are keeping it secret."

He also said he suspected Tsang's eagerness to rush into the project stemmed from "selfish motives" - to conduct the opening ceremony during his term.

The development plans, which were suspended in 2003 after the SARS outbreak, were revived by Tsang after he became chief executive last year.

"The best chief executive would honor the people of Hong Kong by giving the land back to the people, and not follow his own agenda," Kwok said.

"If the government pushes ahead, it will lose the trust of the people, and we will lose our position as a world- class city. But, of course, some people will end up with a very good office with a harbor view."

The Action Group on Protection of the Harbour, which favors the construction of a park at the site, Tuesday released the findings of a public opinion survey which found that most people opposed the government's plans for Tamar.

Of the more than 300 people interviewed last November, more than 65 percent said there should be no high- rise building in the Tamar area. Under the government's plan, at least four high-rises will be built on the site.

The group has also filed an application to the Town Planning Board to rezone the Tamar area as an open space for recreational use and is in the final stages of gathering information for submission before its February 16 deadline.

Lawmakers will continue to debate the fate of Tamar Thursday, at the meeting of the subcommittee tasked to review Central harborfront planning.

hkskyline

February 10th, 2006, 03:56 AM

Witness confirms secret report on government HQ
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, February 10, 2006

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20060210/land.jpg

Contradicting government claims, two witnesses have stepped forward to confirm the existence of a "secret" study that allegedly disputes the need for the administration's desired HK$6 billion headquarters development at Tamar.

Property surveyor Margaret Brooke told a Legislative Council subcommittee Thursday that, "without revealing any confidences," she and her husband Nicholas were involved in a feasibility study that concluded that redevelopment of the existing Central Government Offices at Lower Albert Road and the Murray Building "was feasible on a phased basis and with a significant increase in floor area."

The planning, lands and works panel's meeting was held to try to compel the government to release the document, which the administration has repeatedly insisted does not exist, and which seemingly counters the government's contention that constructing the headquarters on the prime waterfront site is imperative.

After the meeting, Brooke said the government had commissioned the study in 1991 from her former company, property services group Brooke Hillier Parker.

Brooke, who no longer owns a copy of the study, said the government ignored the findings even though they indicated "it was enough to make redevelopment worthwhile."

"I don't know what the government did with it, but nothing happened with it further," she said.

Brooke's disclosure to Legco came days after media reports revealed the government had been withholding for years studies that favored the redevelopment of the existing government offices, impugning the administration's claim that starting from scratch at Tamar would be a "better option."

The administration later issued a strong denial, calling the reports "misleading" and "totally unfounded."

About 20 local concern groups spoke at Thursday's meeting, many urging the government to reconsider its options and invite a territorywide public consultation.

Spurred on by their support, legislators demanded the administration disclose whether it had conducted any previous studies, but government officials stalled, citing wording technicalities.

"We have conducted many studies, so it depends on what sort of studies you are referring to," Deputy Director of Administration Susan Mak said. "You are asking for all reports since 1990, but this covers a huge range, so I ask you to be more specific." After repeated failure, a nonbinding motion was lodged by lawmaker and Action Group on Protection of the Harbour convenor Kwok Ka-ki, urging the government to furnish the panel with "all raw reports and data on feasibility studies on new or existing government headquarters, including demand analysis, site impact, environmental assessment and traffic analysis."

Democratic lawmaker Lee Wing-tat amended the motion to "avoid any possible misunderstanding," specifying that the government should provide any information pertaining to "building a new office, extension, demolishing, refurbishment, remodeling, converting, in-situ redevelopment, and all related information to the development of the new building."

The motion passed with five legislators voting in favor and only pro- government Alliance lawmaker Abraham Shek, who represents the construction sector, abstaining.

A previous motion, passed unanimously by the panel on December 17, called for a review of the planning for the Central waterfront and Tamar site, but was snubbed by the government three days later when it announced it was pushing ahead with the project by inviting bidders to apply for prequalification for the project's proposed design-and-build contract.

The government did not say whether it would abide by Thursday's motion.

hkskyline

February 10th, 2006, 04:33 PM

Show all on plans for HQ, government told
Legislators discuss calls for public to have say on Tamar
10 February 2006
South China Morning Post

Legislators yesterday passed two motions calling for the release of all documents prepared since 1990 on the expansion, relocation or reconstruction of the government headquarters.

The move came as legislators responded with scepticism to repeated government denials of the existence of a secret report saying the headquarters could be redeveloped on its present site instead of moving to Tamar.

The separate motions were moved by Kwok Ka-ki and Albert Chan Wai-yip at a meeting of the subcommittee to review planning for the Central waterfront.

Democratic Party leader Lee Wing-tat pressed for information about the report, said to have stated that the government's office needs could be met by renovating the Central Government Offices and using the maximum allowed density for the Murray Building.

"The key point is that Jose Lei, former director of architectural services, confirmed the existence of such a plan," said Mr Lee, citing a report on Monday in the South China Morning Post. "I have known Mr Lei for years, and he is not the type of person who would lie."

Susan Mak Lok Suet-ling, deputy director of administration, denied that such a plan existed. She reiterated the government statement that it had been looking into options for coping with the demand for office space in the Central Government Offices and Murray Buildings since the early 1990s.

Legislator Choy So-yuk, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, urged the government to fully review its proposal to move the government headquarters to Tamar.

The meeting also discussed submissions from more than 20 individuals and groups on the Tamar development. All submissions - among them those from Central and Western District Council, the Hong Kong Institute of Planners, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects and harbour activist groups - demanded more public participation in deciding the overall design and land use of the Tamar site.

hkskyline

February 11th, 2006, 09:12 PM

Oct. 18, 2005

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/IMG_2326.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/IMG_2325.jpg

hkskyline

February 14th, 2006, 06:02 AM

Reclamation is only option for bypass, say engineers
14 February 2006
South China Morning Post

A report from government engineers has found only one viable option for the controversial Central-Wan Chai bypass - reclamation.

The bypass is aimed at easing traffic congestion and providing a traffic link to proposed development on harbour reclamation.

The government wants to build its new offices on the Tamar site in Admiralty, as well as a large commercial district.

Critics have stepped up lobbying against the plans, with one group releasing a proposal calling for the entire area to be converted into a harbourfront park.

The report, which will be presented behind closed doors to a subgroup of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee today, says engineering consultants believe a deep-water tunnel for the site would require too much additional harbour reclamation at an entrance in North Point.

An inland tunnel is dismissed as unfeasible because of existing tunnels, buildings and utility cables.

The report says the only other options are a flyover or a shallow water tunnel, which is the government's preferred option.

The convenor of the civic group Designing Hong Kong Harbour District, Paul Zimmerman, said the proposals would be discussed and then undergo a further assessment by another team of engineers.

"We are still in the learning stage. It's a bit hard to make an assessment now without having engineers look at them as well," Mr Zimmerman said.

"There will be discussion about it today and then we will take it away for further consultation."

The report has no financial comparisons or advantages and disadvantages for either proposal.

"It's hard to see the trade-offs between the various options from what we have in front of us," Mr Zimmerman said.

raymond_tung88

February 14th, 2006, 11:23 PM

So... I'm really confused about the reclamation plan going on. They are ONLY going to reclaim in Central/ Wanchai but they're not going to reclaim land to meet up with the HKCEC? I believe they're going to have a "gap"? Is that right?

What's happening to the proposed reclamation in Causeway Bay? Is that not happening? Also, after ALL this planning/ reclaiming is done, there will be no more reclamation plans ever right?

zergcerebrates

February 14th, 2006, 11:37 PM

I'm confused as well.

hkskyline

February 15th, 2006, 01:09 AM

FM 2258

February 15th, 2006, 03:46 AM

They should do that deep water tunnel with commercial and park development on the extra reclaimed land. I don't see what people are protesting about.

dannykylaw

February 15th, 2006, 01:45 PM

Yes, there will be a gap between Central and Wanchai in the present plan. The Causeway Bay reclamation is not going to happen. Originally the HKCEC wanted to expand on that land.

Will they build a bridge to connect the Central and Wanchai in the future? The gap is for Ferries ? Right!

hkskyline

February 15th, 2006, 04:40 PM

Will they build a bridge to connect the Central and Wanchai in the future? The gap is for Ferries ? Right!
That one unreclaimed section is going to cause a lot of headache. The original plan was to have the underpass and MTR extension go underneath the waterfront promenade. The Airport Express would go from Asiaworld Expo right to HKCEC.

hkskyline

February 17th, 2006, 01:39 AM

Harborfront use review bid fails to include Tamar plan
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, February 17, 2006

Environmental activists celebrated a small victory Thursday when the government-appointed Harbourfront Enhancement Committee passed a motion seeking a review of the strategy on temporary harborfront land use.

The nonbinding motion called on the government to beautify waterfront areas designated for temporary use by improving public access, introducing greenery, removing all unnecessary fencing and promoting public leisure and marine use with suitable facilities and the dispensing of short-term leases.

"Much harborfront land is being used for car parks or storage sites, and some has been vacant for 10 years," Business Environment Council representative Andrew Thomson said after the meeting. "In those 10 years, the public missed the opportunity to enjoy access to the waterfront."

Thomson estimated that the motion would apply to 35-40 percent of all harborfront land on Hong Kong Island.

Fifteen committee members voted in favor of the motion. Among the six government officials who abstained was Permanent Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Rita Lau, who voiced her opposition before the vote.

"The committee is not a statutory organization with executive power," Lau told members. "If the motion involves use of government resources or manpower, we already have very limited resources and we cannot channel it all into this area."

The motion was first proposed last May by Business Environment Council representative Paul Zimmerman - who was not present at Thursday's meeting.

But Thursday's victory was short- lived as the focus of the debate soon turned to the subject of Tamar. Environmental activists called for a public consultation and enhancement review of the Central reclamation project, as it had done previously with the Central-Wan Chai bypass, but government officials were reluctant to agree.

Director of Planning Bosco Fung pointed out that the Tamar zoning plans had already been approved by the Town Planning Board and therefore did not require further public consultation. But as reclamation in the Tamar area would not be completed until 2008, Fung conceded there would still be time to "enhance and deepen" the existing plans by consulting various concern groups, but declined to give a definite timetable.

Despite the government's launching in December of a prequalification exercise for potential Tamar bidders, Fung insisted there was "still a long way to go before details are confirmed," thus allowing a window of time for further public consultation.

But other members were not persuaded. "The right time is now," Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce senior director Chan Wai-kwan said. "We should not wait until the work is done before we launch the consultation. It seems that the public is alienated from the planning for the Central area."

Zimmerman, who is also convener of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District - a group advocating better planning for the harborfront-said he plans to launch a conference in conjunction with think-tank Civic Exchange on March 18 where members of the public can view current plans, and identify alternative proposals.

hkskyline

February 20th, 2006, 10:25 PM

Coalition of top businesses urges greener harborfront
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Tuesday, February 21, 2006

A coalition of leading Hong Kong businesses has called on the government to re-evaluate its harborfront planning, warning that reclamation and development projects along the waterfront are taking their toll on the local economy.

The Harbour Business Forum - comprising 120 companies including Standard Chartered Bank, Sun Hung Kai Properties, Henderson Land Development, Swire Group and Cathay Pacific Airlines - Monday released findings from a study completed last month that found 88 percent of the public would like to see a greener harborfront.

The findings are an indication of "an increasingly mature economy," in which the public is considering how social and environmental factors affect job opportunities in the long term, said group chairman and HSBC chief operating officer Andrew Long, who called the findings "a loud and clear message."

Of 1,040 residents interviewed by phone, 85 percent also said they felt the harborfront was an international icon that embodied the "prosperity and success" of Hong Kong.

"We want what is good for Hong Kong in terms of business, and protection of the harbor adds value to Hong Kong," Long said.

The top concerns among locals were pollution (73 percent) and the amount of reclamation and construction along the harborfront (64 percent).

Almost all respondents (97 percent) said they were aware of at least one harbor-related development project, with the West Kowloon cultural district and Tamar reclamation projects topping the list.

The study also involved focus-group discussions where people were encouraged to voice their views.

"I always tell this joke to my kid: One day we may be able to walk from Hong Kong to Kowloon side," said one respondent, referring to the decades of reclamation that have shrunk the size of Victoria Harbour by half.

"I hope it remains a joke, not a reality."

Another respondent said: "I want to be proud of being a Hong Konger, having a unique harbor that cannot be found anywhere in the world."

Most interviewees wanted fewer commercial and residential developments and more walkways, cultural facilities and green areas.

The older generation, in particular, demonstrated the most emotional attachment to the harbor, with 80 percent agreeing that "the harbor brings back a lot of good memories."

Long warned that environmental factors such as pollution are increasingly important on foreign businesses' "priorities checklist."

He said he has anecdotal evidence that foreign businesses are "turned off" by pollution in Hong Kong.

While the study also found that most Hong Kongers felt there were not enough leisure facilities around the harbor, Long said the forum had not considered asking Financial Secretary Henry Tang to allocate more resources in tomorrow's budget speech.

The forum plans to launch a public design competition in mid-March for the community to share their visions of harborfront development.

hkskyline

February 28th, 2006, 02:02 AM

Harbour activist to sue city planners
Board will not change site's zoning, yet admits that decision was flawed
20 February 2006
South China Morning Post

City planners face a lawsuit after admitting the zoning of a valuable waterfront site was flawed, but refusing to change it.

Harbour activist Paul Zimmerman has threatened to seek a judicial review unless the Town Planning Board changes its decision on the site in Oil Street, North Point, one of the most coveted plots of land in Hong Kong.

The board is waiting for an opinion from the Department of Justice on the issue.

The government plans to auction the old Government Supplies Depot, but harbour activists say the planning brief that dictates the layout, height and plot ratio of the 1.6-hectare site was drawn up in the 1990s, years before harbour enhancement guidelines were created to curb rampant development on the harbourfront.

Mr Zimmerman's move comes after he filed a request to the board last year, calling for the site to be rezoned to increase the amount of open space and lower building density.

The board agreed with what he suggested, but ordered the Planning Department to review the planning brief.

Its members agreed with the principles the harbour group had suggested, such as more open space and stepped building heights to avoid a wall effect blocking views across the harbour. But they did not want to restrict the design and layout of a future development and believed there were other ways to achieve the same objectives.

Under the Town Planning Ordinance, the government has to prepare a new outline zoning plan when a site needs to be rezoned. This requires public consultation. A planning brief, however, is a guideline that helps property developers to prepare a master development plan for the board's approval.

Legal experts said the decision on the former government supplies depot would have an impact on other sites where rezoning applications were rejected on similar grounds.

Mr Zimmerman wrote to the board at the end of last month, demanding that it amend the Oil Street decision or face a judicial review.

"The board agreed the current zoning is not right," said Mr Zimmerman, convenor of the pressure group Designing Hong Kong Harbour District.

"If it is wrong, it must be changed," he said.

"They should proceed with the rezoning. Unfortunately it decided to confine the change to the planning brief, which is non-statutory. They are side-stepping the proper planning principle.

"The reasons for doing this is to leave the power of controlling the site with the government."

He said the site had a special meaning for Hongkongers.

"Harbour protection is not just about reclamation, it is also about proper planning at the waterfront, reserving it for public enjoyment."

In his letter, dated January 20, Mr Zimmerman said the grounds for the review would be that the board had made "serious procedural and substantive errors" and "failed to comply with the statutory duty imposed on it them".

Eric Cheung Tat-ming, assistant law professor at the University of Hong Kong, said: "If the development restrictions are made statutory, the room for deviation will be small. But if it is just an administrative statement, there will be more space for departure."

Roger Ho Yao-sheng of the Mid-Levels Concern Group welcomed Mr Zimmerman's move. "Our officials lack planning vision. They only care about how much the land can fetch at auctions," he said.

The board said it ensured widespread public consultation before drawing up the planning brief.

hkskyline

March 2nd, 2006, 01:09 AM

Zoning plan fails to protect harbourfront, top firms warn
2 March 2006
South China Morning Post

A report by a group of leading companies has found that guidelines for future development in Central are "minimal" and may ultimately lead to massive buildings cutting the harbour off from the business and political centre.

The Harbour Business Forum, a coalition of 120 leading companies and business groups, said many "desirable outcomes" referred to in the government's plans for the waterfront are not provided for, or protected, in the outline zoning plan (OZP) for Central.

The report also said that the plan covers only uses and height limits, while some sites, including the PLA headquarters, a sewage plant and a site in front of the Central ferry piers, had no height restrictions.

It noted that the open plaza of a proposed long, low-rise building near the piers - dubbed a "groundscraper" by the government - is "not actually on ground level, providing open access and views between Statue Square and the Star Ferry, but instead sits atop a two-storey building".

It added: "Many of the desirable outcomes alluded to in the outline zoning plan, and in the government illustrations, are not provided for nor protected in the document.

"There is no tool in the existing OZP that would ensure that these smaller-scale building massings, pedestrian connections or corridors are respected in any potential development."

Andrew Long, chairman of the convenors committee of the business forum, said the current harbour planning principles "need further work" because they were open to broad interpretation and needed to be tightened.

The Harbour Business Forum was set up last year in response to growing concerns within the business community over the future of the harbour. It wants the Town Planning Board to adapt its plans to meet new planning principles set out by the Harbour Enhancement Committee, which the government itself set up.

Mr Long hoped the review would give the government some ideas about alternative approaches to long-term development of Central and safeguarding the harbour.

"We're looking at the big picture, at what the harbour should look like in 20 or 30 years," Mr Long, chief operating officer of HSBC, said.

The business forum commissioned a survey last month which showed that 88 per cent of the public was in favour of a greener harbourfront with fewer skyscrapers.

The forum, whose members include the South China Morning Post's largest single shareholder, the Kerry Group, wants the government to ensure there is easy ground-level access between Central and the harbourfront.

Citing the example of the Central escalator and its effect on revitalising the Soho area, Mr Long said: "Once people had ground-level access, not only did restaurants and boutiques open up, but on second and third floors, other businesses also appeared."

"There is now a groundswell in public opinion with regard to the harbour," Mr Long said, adding that the government must look again at a variety of planning issues, including the width of roads being built near the harbour.

hkskyline

March 7th, 2006, 04:34 AM

Tamar lobbyists plan Legco motion
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Frustrated lawmakers and activists plan to ratchet up the heat at a Legislative Council meeting today due to the administration's "dissatisfactory" response to request for studies on the Tamar government headquarters plan.

Replying to a Legco subcommittee motion last month, the government over the weekend released 11 studies on the project, but not the one sought by legislators that purportedly disputes the need for the HK$5 billion waterfront development.

Lawmaker and Action Group on Protection of the Harbour convenor Kwok Ka-ki, who moved last month's motion, called the response "disrespectful" and a way of "cheating." He said he has already prepared a "stronger motion" to specifically request the document at today's meeting.

At least one of the studies in question was conducted by property surveyor Margaret Brooke, who earlier told the subcommittee she and her husband Nicholas were involved in a feasibility study that concluded that redevelopment of the existing Central Government Offices at Lower Albert Road and the Murray Building "was feasible on a phased basis and with a significant increase in floor area."

Brooke, who no longer has a copy of the study commissioned by the government, called the response inadequate. "I can't understand why that report would be different from other reports," she said. "Why should Legco have to ask specifically for it?"

The convenor of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District Paul Zimmerman also expressed disappointment and said he would continue efforts to increase public awareness about the "core issue."

He said: "It's not just about a government office versus a park at Tamar. People have to understand that issue is not just about Tamar, but about urban planning for Central."

Since the relaunch of the Tamar project by Chief Executive Donald Tsang last October in his policy address, the government has maintained that moving headquarters to Tamar would be a "better choice" than in-situ redevelopment, which it estimated could take up to four years longer.

Another factor spurring Tsang's decision is the high rate of unemployment in the construction sector, which could be temporarily relieved by the new project. Tamar would create about 2,700 new construction jobs, according to the government's estimate.

hkskyline

March 8th, 2006, 01:35 AM

Lawmakers demand to examine Tamar documents
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Plans to push ahead with the Tamar development project continued to meet with resistance Tuesday as lawmakers passed a second motion requesting the administration release documents allegedly disputing the need for the HK$5 billion construction of new government headquarters at the prime Central waterfront site.

Legislators attending a subcommittee meeting expressed disappointment at the administration's refusal to disclose studies dating from the early 1990s which reportedly indicate that redevelopment of the existing government offices in Central was possible on a phased basis. The administration responded Tuesday by saying it had made the decision to draw a "cut-off" line on studies preceding 1997 because they were "outdated."

After debating for two hours with Deputy Director of Administration Susan Mak, who insisted any further disclosure of documents would require "consultation with lawyers," a motion was moved by legislator and convenor of Action Group on Protection of the Harbour Kwok Ka-ki urging the government to present a checklist of "all relevant papers" at the subcommittee's next meeting.

The motion was passed with the minimum quorum, however, as only four lawmakers - including subcommittee chairman Lau Wong-fat - sat through the entirety of the meeting.

"It's remarkable that I've been able to ask five rounds of questions today, thanks to some members who dare not attend the meeting because they might be seen as trying to thwart [Chief Executive] Mr [Donald] Tsang," remarked Democrat Lee Wing-tat.

Lee was referring to the resignation of two members of the pro-Beijing Alliance group, Patrick Lau and Raymond Ho, just days after the chief executive declared in Beijing his eagerness to push ahead with the controversial project. Neither Lau nor Ho commented on their decisions.

Lawmakers Kwok, Lee and Article 45 Concern Group's Alan Leong were persistent in their questioning of the administration's reasoning behind its decision to go with Tamar.

"Land is the most valuable resource in Hong Kong," Leong said. "If the government makes a mistake with Tamar, it's unlikely we can find another piece of land like it. Tamar is one of the last remaining premium sites."

The subcommittee is to hold its next meeting before the end of the month.

hkskyline

March 11th, 2006, 07:04 AM

Democrats soften opposition to Tamar use
11 March 2006
South China Morning Post

The Democratic Party has softened its opposition to the new government headquarters being built on the Tamar site, saying it was prepared to negotiate.

But the party said it wanted the original plan for buildings of up to 30 storeys to be drastically scaled down by a half or two-thirds. This would mean that only the administration's executive branch - Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and his cabinet and deputies to government ministers - would take up offices there.

Chairman Lee Wing-tat denied the party was making a U-turn and said: "We believe our latest plan {hellip} will strike a balance between public access to the harbour, protection of historic relics and providing necessary working space for a symbolic and solemn government headquarters."

The party's new stance could save Mr Tsang from humiliation as its support would give the government enough votes to push the plan through the Legislative Council.

The government will almost certainly have the 30 votes it needs for funding with the added support of the Liberal Party and The Alliance of non-affiliated lawmakers. A funding request for preliminary personnel will be tabled in Legco early next month.

Tsang Yok-sing, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, said his party would continue its opposition to the plan despite continuing rumours that it was part of a plot to oppose the chief executive.

"We have always been consistent because we believe the government headquarters should move away from Central. Many party members said if we change now, people might get the impression that we are forced to change because of pressure from the central government," Mr Tsang said.

The DAB will hold talks with officials soon, but warned the government: "Don't be too sure we are definitely going to give you our votes." A spokeswoman for the government's administrative wing said it would consult lawmakers for their views but cautioned that cost-effectiveness was paramount in the proposed relocation.

Meanwhile, the Town Planning Board may face a judicial review filed by a harbour activist group for refusing to give it extra time to persuade the board to alter the land use at the site.

The Action Group on Protection of the Harbour, led by legislator Kwok Ka-ki, yesterday asked the board to consider rezoning the site from public to "open" space until June.

The group also issued a request to adjourn the hearing to June because it was unable to provide "sufficient information" to back up its proposal.

The administration had only submitted relevant documents released before 1998 to Legco, but would submit all documents to the Financial Committee before June to request its endorsement.

"We will seek legal advice for seeking judicial review if the board should reject our request" for both the rezoning and the adjournment, Mr Kwok said.

But the board rejected the request "because those documents, which the group is requesting from the government, are not relevant to the group's proposal", said spokeswoman Brenda Au Kit-ying.

hkskyline

March 11th, 2006, 07:05 AM

Tamar recreation bid rejected
Michael Ng and Carrie Chan
11 March 2006
Hong Kong Standard

The Town Planning Board has rejected a harbor protection group's attempt to have the planned HK$5 billion government headquarters project at the Tamar site in Central turned over to recreational use.

The Action Group on Protection of the Harbour has claimed that constructing the new headquarters will affect the air flow in the Central and Wan Chai areas.

The group also said their counterproposal to develop a promenade at the site will offer another tourist attraction and bring considerable economic benefits.

But at its meeting Friday, the board rejected the group's application, saying there were insufficient grounds to overturn the government's proposal.

"According to the government's proposal, two hectares of land have been reserved for recreational purposes. We don't see any need to further increase recreational space at the site,'' board spokesman Au Kit-ying said.

"With regard to the height of the proposed structure, the administration wing has already proposed to limit the height of buildings in the range of 130-160 meters. Such a move can also effectively preserve our mountain ridge scenery.''

Group convenor and legislator Kwok Ka-ki said he was disappointed at the board's decision.

"The board is just a rubber stamp, as the government has complete influence over the body,'' he said.

Kwok said his group will seek legal advice to ascertain whether they can take the matter further.

The Democratic Party, which previously expressed reservations about the government's headquarters plan, Friday raised a counterproposal, suggesting that the government downsize the project by between a third and a half, and increase the proportion of recreational space for the public.

Party chairman Lee Wing-tat said with the government now streamlining its structure and the number of civil servants being reduced, it would be more suitable if just the top bracket of government officials moved into the new headquarters.

"A smaller-sized government headquarters and bigger site for public use is the best way to strike a balance between the government's need for a new headquarters and the public's demand for shorefront recreational areas,'' Lee said.

Asked if this represented the party's conditional support for the government's new headquarters project, Lee said the party remained flexible and was willing to further negotiate with the administration.

Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong chairman Ma Lik, who is also a National People's Congress deputy, dismissed charges in Beijing that his party was under mounting pressure from the central government to support the government's Tamar plan.

"We still believe in our proposal to move the government headquarters from Lower Albert Road to the vacated former Kai Tak airport to stimulate the redevelopment of South East Kowloon,'' Ma said. "We are prepared to stand by this proposal which has been well-researched and thoroughly studied.'' The director of the chief executive's office, John Tsang, had earlier this week approached pan-democracy lawmakers seeking full backing for the Tamar plan.

Rejecting speculation that the pro- Beijing party had been dropped from the government's lobbying list, Ma added: ``We will not oppose for the sake of opposing, but we will work for the interests of the whole of Hong Kong. As a political party supportive of the SAR government's rule by law, we may differ with the government on points of view.

"But this does not mean there will be no cooperation.''

With 21 legislators from the Liberal Party, the Alliance and independents already supporting the plan, a government source said the administration was optimistic it could secure more than 30 supportive votes for the Tamar plan.

"We will comply with a majority decision. But we will continue to stand by our initial stance on Kai Tak and we see no pressing need to come to an immediate decision on relocating the government headquarters,'' Ma said.

hkskyline

March 15th, 2006, 01:20 AM

Submission of prequalification applications for Tamar closes today
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Government Press Release

The Government has received a total of four applications for prequalification for the Tamar development project. Applications closed at noon today (March 14).

A Government spokesman said he was satisfied with the number of applications. Each application involves a joint venture of several companies.

The Special Selection Board chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration will consider the applications and select prequalified applicants by the second quarter of this year.

"The shortlisted applicants will be invited to tender for the proposed design and build contract for the project in the third quarter of this year, subject to funding support by the Legislative Council," the spokesman said.

The Tamar development project covers the design and construction of mainly three components: a new Central Government Complex, Legislative Council Complex and Civic Place.

On December 20, 2005, the Government invited interested parties to apply for prequalification. The Government will seek funding approval for the project from the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in the second quarter of 2006.

If approval is obtained, the Government will issue a tender document in the third quarter of 2006 to invite the prequalified applicants to submit tenders for the contract. The target is to start construction in 2007 for completion in 2010.

hkskyline

March 15th, 2006, 07:48 PM

Four bids lodged for Tamar project
15 March 2006
South China Morning Post

The government had received four applications for pre-qualification for the Tamar development project by the noon deadline yesterday. A government spokesman said he was satisfied with the response and that each application involved a joint venture of companies whose identities he declined to disclose. Chief Secretary Rafael Hui Si-yan will chair the board that will select pre-qualified applicants by the second quarter of this year.

Business leaders have launched a harbourfront design competition to garner community input on the future of Victoria Harbour. The competition was organised by the Harbour Business Forum, formed last year by more than 120 leading companies. It is open to all ages, but professional design proposals will not be considered. Information on the competition is available at www.myharbour.hk

hkskyline

March 16th, 2006, 04:40 AM

Framing Tamar in politics
13 March 2006
South China Morning Post

The lavish spending on grand construction projects by local governments in the mainland has been a long-standing, controversial issue. With many mired in poverty, spending funds to promote the image and glory of leaders is hardly conducive to a harmonious society.

In Hong Kong, government leaders need no glamorous infrastructure to show they have done a good job. It is therefore baffling that Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has invested so much political capital - to quote Christine Loh Kung-wai of the think-tank Civic Exchange - in building the new government headquarters at the Tamar site.

Yet pundits say the stakes in the Tamar project have grown high, following the administration's setbacks over constitutional reform and the West Kowloon cultural hub development.

When the government decided to send the West Kowloon project back to the drawing board last month, it was widely seen as a matter of "choosing the right battle". Mr Tsang was hoping that putting that row on the backburner would help secure support in the Legislative Council for the Tamar project.

One of the administration's major arguments is that the multibillion-dollar Tamar development would create 2,700 jobs for the construction industry, currently in the doldrums. More importantly, approval for the project would put an end to the prolonged government indecision on how to use the waterfront site. It could become a showcase of the "can-do" style of government that Mr Tsang aspires to.

The tussle over the project has become further politicised in light of the complex, unsteady relationship between the administration and major parties in Legco. Opposition to Tamar from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) remains unchanged, said the party's former chairman, Tsang Yok-sing, last week. The DAB has proposed relocating the government headquarters to the former Kai Tak airport site, instead.

Tsang Yok-sing's statement followed a blitz of remarks to "support [Donald] Tsang" by state leaders during the National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference plenums, under way in Beijing.

So, however convincingly the DAB argues for its alternative plan at Kai Tak, its vote on the Tamar project will raise speculation about its relationship with the administration.

Sticking to its guns may be called a political move to avoid being seen as pro-government. Changing its mind could fuel speculation that Beijing intervened behind the scenes.

The reaction by democratic legislators will also be interpreted in the context of an increasingly complicated friend-foe relationship between the chief executive and major political factions.

Democrat legislators currently back the Tamar project, but if they change their minds they could be criticised for politicising a job-creation project.

If they continue to endorse it, that could be derided as a tactical move to show they don't oppose everything the government does, as democrat-bashers claim.

As the political manoeuvring over the project intensifies, the issues at the heart of the new headquarters plan have become blurred, and seemingly marginalised.

Now, the project has become narrowly defined as a tussle between the government and Legco or, more accurately, a game of soliciting enough votes to get it passed.

Meanwhile, the key question of whether the $4.5-billion project is justified in terms of cost-effectiveness and efficiency - in the wider context of city planning and public participation in the process - is left unaddressed.

That sounds like the last thing policymakers would want. The government has only itself to blame for failing to focus public debate on the project's merits, thus fuelling speculation about hidden political agendas.

Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large.

hkth

March 19th, 2006, 11:34 AM

From news.gov.hk:
Half of Tamar site set for a Civic Place (http://news.gov.hk/en/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060318/html/060318en06004.htm)

Mosaic

March 19th, 2006, 02:53 PM

When will this process, reclamation, be done?

hkskyline

March 19th, 2006, 05:13 PM

When will this process, reclamation, be done?
Reclamation is already taking place. The problem is what to do with the empty plot of land afterwards. Part of the Tamar site was filled in in the late 1990s.

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051004/OCT04-S02-099.jpg

Mosaic

March 20th, 2006, 08:29 AM

Thanks, HKskyline.

hkskyline

March 21st, 2006, 05:30 AM

Government's response to remarks by Dr the Hon Kwok Ka-ki on Tamar development
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Government Press Release

In response to media enquiries on the remarks made by Dr the Hon Kwok Ka-ki on the Tamar development project in the "Letter to Hong Kong" broadcast on RTHK, a Government spokesman said today (March 19) that the development project was not only about development of a new Central Government Complex.

According to the "Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan" (the relevant OZP), about half of the Tamar site, viz. 2 hectares, is designated for "Open Space" use. The Government will develop this "Open Space" portion into a "Civic Place" for the public's recreational use. The remaining half of the site will be for construction of a new Legislative Council Complex, in addition to the new Central Government Complex.

The Government has conducted assessments on the traffic impact of the Tamar development project in 2002 and 2005. According to the Transport Department's most updated figures of September 2005, the traffic flow to be generated from the Tamar project in the operation stage is estimated insignificant, and would not cause adverse impacts on the traffic flow of the Central Business District.

Subject to the funding approval of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, the Tamar development project will start in 2007 and complete in 2010 at the earliest. There is considerable time before the relocation of the existing Government headquarters. The Government, therefore, considers it more appropriate to decide on the future use(s) of the existing Central Government Offices and Murray Building sites nearer the completion of the Tamar project. It will better reflect and take into account future prevailing community needs and concerns, as well as socio-economic changes, in order to meet the interest of the public at large.

According to the relevant OZP, the Central Government Offices and Murray Building sites are at present zoned for "Government, Institution or Community" use. If there were any change of the existing use in future, the Government would have to follow the established statutory procedures, including the necessary public consultation process, instituted under the Town Planning Ordinance.

The Government proposes to implement the Tamar development project with a "design-and-build" approach, and at the same time attaches great importance to the design of developments on the Tamar site. We will require the tenderers to propose design schemes for the Tamar project that can blend in with the urban context of the Central District, as well as the natural environment of the waterfront setting. The ultimate goal is to develop the Tamar site into an iconic prime civic core of Hong Kong.

hkskyline

March 23rd, 2006, 02:05 AM

Too valuable to misuse
21 March 2006
South China Morning Post

Urban density and the quality of our city planning has pretty much been determined by the way the government sells land at auction and collects premiums on its usage and density. The overriding tendency inside the Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau is to get as much for this precious resource as possible. That's a good thing if you need money for infrastructure for a thriving metropolis, but it is a bad thing if you want sound planning and a higher quality of urban life.

Recently, two incidents have shown just how little our politicians understand this process. A public consensus has formed over the past few years that we suffer from too much urban density and enjoy too little urban open space. The government's practice of squeezing as much money out of our limited land resources perpetuates this problem.

And yet, our legislators, who should know better, have decided to make decisions about two policies concerning our urban environment regardless of the facts. The first is the Democrats' mysterious position on the proposed new government headquarters at the Tamar site.

Bizarrely, the party finds itself allied with the rotten boroughs - the functional constituencies - which support the proposal. The Democrats meekly qualified their position with a warning to government planners to limit the density of the project.

But would any government employee fail to try to maximise what he or she could get for some of the choicest property in Hong Kong, especially after the hysterical criticism levelled at the grant of free land to Henderson Land's Grande Promenade project? Would the politicians have forgiven the lost revenue had the grant been used to build a park?

The fact is that even if the government built a headquarters alone - with no additional private commercial space - it would increase both density and traffic to unsustainable levels in Wan Chai, Admiralty and Central. The higher density would naturally support the government's case for another ugly road on our precious waterfront.

Is that what the politicians want?

The second, and more annoying, case is politicians' critical reaction to a recent article in the Post after it was discovered that many developers had reaped handsome returns from the government policy of exempting green spaces from those big premiums they pay. The policy provides an incentive to build flats with balconies and provide more open spaces for residents.

This green policy actually limited the government's obsession with maximising revenue from land sales. In adopting the policy, it took a small step towards treating land as a planning, as opposed to a revenue, issue. The government backtracked somewhat on this scheme recently when it rejected developers' requests to combine the balcony spaces with utility platforms, so that balconies could be increased in size. So the vapid criticism from politicians is undermining a helpful trend towards increasing the quality of our urban living spaces.

As long as the government raises revenue from land, the overwhelming tendency will be to maximise, maximise, maximise. What politicians do not seem to understand is that this will not change in any significant way if they continue to demand good planning with less density and maximised land revenue. The policy to maximise won't change until the system is reformed fundamentally, from the ground up. That means getting government out of the land business. This is a tall order, to be sure, and one that would require courageous political vision.

So we can rule it out for now.

Supporting increased density in Tamar, and undermining the green-spaces policy, just shows that lawmakers - sadly including those in the Democratic Party - have a long way to go before the public can take them seriously as responsible community leaders.

Douglas George Anderson is a journalist and consultant in Hong Kong

hkskyline

March 25th, 2006, 05:16 AM

To go with #106

Missing Tamar report is still a secret
Officials confirm 1990 study's existence, but say Legco must make a specific request for any release
5 March 2006
South China Morning Post

The government has released 11 documents in response to a Legislative Council request for reports on the expansion, relocation or rebuilding of government headquarters.

But a report said to conclude that relocation to the Tamar site is unnecessary is not among them.

Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat called the partial disclosure unacceptable, and said he would write to the administration reiterating the demand for a full checklist of documents prepared since 1990 relating to the project. The withheld report's existence was revealed last month by the South China Morning Post. Sources said the study, begun around 1990, concluded the needs of the shrinking civil service could be met by renovating the Central Government Offices and using the maximum allowed density for the Murray Building.

The government denied such a plan existed.

However, at a briefing yesterday, government sources, when questioned about the existence of such a secret report, said that private consultants had been commissioned 16 years ago to carry out a study. But they said its focus was to assess the feasibility of soliciting private sector participation in the building of a new government headquarters.

The government sources were not forthcoming about the conclusions of the consultants' study. When asked, an official source said: "The report recommended different options. None of them was taken up."

It could be made available if Legco specifically requested it, providing there were no contractual restrictions on its publication, the source said.

The sources said the documents released yesterday were mostly drafted following the Town Planning Board's decision to rezone Tamar for government use in 1998.

As such, they were more relevant to the terms of Legco's request than the 16-year-old consultants' study, they said.

Among the documents are two which concluded building a new headquarters at Tamar would deliver adequate office space four years sooner than if the existing office buildings were redeveloped.

The new headquarters planned for the site of the naval shipyard in Admiralty will be 26 to 32 storeys high, have nearly 70,000 square metres of office space and cost $4.9 billion. It will house the 3,000 civil servants working in the Central Government Offices and Murray Building.

In Beijing, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen reiterated that the plan to build at the Tamar site would provide extra job opportunities for the construction sector and offer a stimulus to the economy.

"We will certainly step up efforts to lobby the lawmakers, particularly those from friendly parties such as the DAB," he said. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong favours relocating the headquarters to Kai Tak.

Officials yesterday ducked a Legco question about whether redevelopment of the existing government sites would generate the same number of jobs for the construction industry as building a new headquarters.

They also claimed that no detailed estimates had been made of how much the redevelopment would cost.

Construction at Tamar was expected to begin by the middle of next year, government sources said.

hkskyline

March 25th, 2006, 05:15 PM

Making room for the people
24 March 2006
South China Morning Post

Over the past few years, organisers of the Hong Kong International Film Festival have staged outdoor shows at the Tamar site by erecting a huge temporary screen, the largest of its kind in Asia. When I looked through this year's programme, I noticed that the blurb said these would be "the last picture shows at the Tamar site". It seems there is still some misunderstanding about what the Tamar project is all about.

The major misconception is that, under the proposed development, Tamar would be used solely to build a new government headquarters office complex, which would deny the public access to the area. That is not the case.

The government's objective is to develop the site as an iconic civic core for Hong Kong. Half of it would be used for the office buildings and a new Legislative Council complex. The other half - adjacent to the waterfront - is designated as open space, and would be developed into a public, civic space.

Once the project was finished, Tamar would become a hub of activity for the administration, the legislature and the public. As a whole, the project is a balanced option that takes into account public interests and community needs. It has gone through the statutory planning procedures of the Town Planning Board. In 2003, it was supported by Legco's planning, lands and works panel, as well as the Public Works Subcommittee. The plans were put on the back burner later in 2003, after the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. But now that the economy is performing well, it is a good time to relaunch the project.

Because the Tamar site would become a public landmark, traffic and environmental considerations must - and have - been given due regard. Studies have found that the development would have no long-term, adverse impact on the air quality and environment of the Central district. The same applies for the traffic impact. And, to protect the ridgeline view from Hong Kong Island, the government has imposed height restrictions.

We have pledged to keep a tight rein on the size of the new headquarters complex; only the staff of divisions involved in policy formulation will be accommodated there.

The public interest is our primary concern, but we also have to meet the office needs of both the government and legislators. Both the government Secretariat and Legco have had a shortage of office space for years. The existing Central Government Offices and the Murray Building are 45 and 35 years old, respectively. Annual maintenance costs alone are almost $30 million and, on top of that, some bureaus have to rent commercial office space.

After the relocation of the Secretariat, those two sites may be put to other uses. But before any decisions are made, the public would be consulted.

The Tamar site has been idle for nine years. A feasibility study on the project has been done. Subject to funding support by the Legco Finance Committee, we will proceed with the tender exercise. However, if the Legco consensus is overturned, the site may yet lay idle for a few more years.

At present, unemployment in the construction industry remains serious. The Tamar project will create at least 2,700 employment opportunities, including 2,400 jobs for unemployed workers.

Hong Kong is our home, and we love our city. After the Tamar project is completed, residents and visitors will be able to stroll in the open spaces adjacent to the administrative and legislative centre, and take in the glittering night skyline on both sides of the harbour.

The realisation of this project will be a testimony to harmony and public participation. The city's civic core will become a vibrant venue for enjoying outdoors film shows, performances or simply the magnificent harbour views.

The Tamar development would give Hong Kong an administrative, legislative and recreational heart, and is definitely in the overall interests of the community.

Susan Mak Lok Suet-ling is the Hong Kong government's acting director of administration

hkskyline

March 30th, 2006, 12:55 AM

Hopes rise for formula to develop Tamar site
30 March 2006
South China Morning Post

The administration and two political parties are edging closer to agreement on the new government headquarters to be built on the Tamar site, after intense talks began this month.

Comments yesterday by Tsang Yok-sing, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, indicate the party's opposition to the Tamar project may have softened.

"If the government proposes some improvements on the Tamar project that can convince our DAB brothers, and if the government proposes some suggestions that satisfy our demands on the development of Southeast Kowloon, it's possible that we can consider [supporting the Tamar project].

"We have to face the political reality that if we propose to relocate the Legislative Council and government headquarters to Southeast Kowloon, we won't be able to get the majority support of Legco."

Party vice-chairman Lau Kong-wah said he hoped the government would give a positive response during the question-and-answer session with the chief executive at Legco today.

The DAB's conciliatory remarks followed a five-point counter-proposal by the Democratic Party early this month. Democrats hinted they might back the multibillion-dollar plan if their demands were heeded.

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen is due to give an account to legislators today on his policy agenda in the next 15 months.

His account will include the Tamar plan, speeding up plans for the Southeast Kowloon development on the Kai Tak airport site and measures to improve air quality.

Mr Tsang had promised in his first question time at Legco in July last year that he would review his policy agenda in his current term, which will expire by July next year.

Planning for the Southeast Kowloon development will be crucial as the DAB has insisted the site would be given new life if it became the administration centre.

hkskyline

March 30th, 2006, 06:27 AM

Building without brains
30 March 2006
South China Morning Post

It is frustrating talking to a brick wall. Community groups were branded "anti-development" by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen when they tried to tell him the government's development plans for Central would lead to worse congestion and air quality, and unattractive aesthetics.

The reasons are that the planned complex is too dense, the land parcels slated for development are too large, and highways and roads would dominate the waterfront.

But the government doesn't want to hear this. Officials prefer to hide behind "process": they say the plans have been through the town planning process, and development should proceed quickly. When reminded that the Town Planning Board has raised various concerns, government officials said those issues could be taken care of in the final design.

The government does not want to review the whole plan, although that is what should happen. Hong Kong needs an approach to planning the Central waterfront that is qualitatively different from what has gone before. To see the results of the old approach, you only have to look at what the entire north shore of Hong Kong Island is like today. The waterfront is ugly and cut off from the city by major highways.

The government says everything will be much better in the future, without addressing the details. But the problem is that the surface highways are still going to be there. Pedestrians will have to use raised footbridges to cross these major highways.

In Hong Kong, we all know what walking on raised footbridges is like: they are everywhere. The reason we cannot walk at road level in so many cases is because the space has been given to highways. Is it a pretty sight? No. Is it healthy? No. Are there alternatives? Yes, but we have to adopt a different, lower-density, planning approach.

This is also how critics see the Tamar development for government offices - Mr Tsang's pet project. The government says it will create "an iconic civic core" at the Tamar site, where half the space will be used for government offices and a new Legislative Council building, and the rest will be "designated as open space {hellip} and be developed into a public, civic space".

But this icon will be surrounded by multiple layers of roads. The government steadfastly refuses to consider the surrounding environment of this "civic core".

What critics are trying to tell legislators and Mr Tsang is that the final product cannot be aesthetically pleasing or healthy to visit because of the impact of the entire Central waterfront plan. The government needs to fix the whole plan before it can really consider how best to use and design the Tamar site.

The government's response is disingenuous. Last week, Susan Mak Lok Suet-ling, the acting director of administration, claimed the Tamar development itself would have no long-term adverse impact on traffic, air quality or the environment of the Central district.

The point is not just what goes on top of the Tamar site. There are problems with the entire plan, of which Tamar is a part.

Perhaps government officials and even legislators don't worry about roads, traffic congestion, air quality, noise and aesthetics because they work indoors. But surely, that would be a total failure of their responsibility. To restrict bargaining to essentially the height of the government building is laughable.

Mrs Mak also repeated the hollow argument that the Tamar project would create about 2,700 jobs. If the government is keen to create even more construction jobs it should proceed with the North Island subway line first. A rail line would benefit more people and reduce the need for waterfront highways.

Is anyone in the government willing to engage on details, or are we going to be fed more propaganda?

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange.

hkth

March 30th, 2006, 04:14 PM

From news.gov.hk:
Tamar site most suited for Gov't HQ: CE (Chief Executive) (http://news.gov.hk/en/category/administration/060330/html/060330en01004.htm)

hkskyline

March 31st, 2006, 01:04 AM

It's Tamar - and no argument
Michael Ng
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, March 31, 2006

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20060331/land.jpg

Chief Executive Donald Tsang made it crystal clear Thursday that Tamar is the best possible site for the new government headquarters - and that he will not entertain any further arguments against it.

His statement put an end to a determined bid by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong to get the headquarters relocated to southeast Kowloon.

The HK$5 billion headquarters development was one of the main topics discussed during Tsang's 90-minute question-and-answer session in the Legislative Council Thursday.

DAB legislator Cheung Hok-ming said a study by his party had found that some mainland cities had already moved their government headquarters and political centers to less congested areas.

He said relocating the new government headquarters to the site of the former airport at Kai Tak would also boost redevelopment of southeast Kowloon.

"Has the government taken into account the opinion of the DAB, a party that is close to the public and represents those at the grassroots level?" Cheung asked.

"Has the government considered that relocating a new headquarters to southeast Kowloon would also enhance the claim that the government is getting closer to the public?"

In reply, Tsang said Hong Kong could not be compared with capital cities in other large countries.

"As a financial center, we need to keep the administration, legislature and judiciary close to our financial districts. They are simply inseparable," Tsang said.

"If our headquarters was relocated out of Central, we would have to persuade our legislature and judiciary to also move out and this, I believe, would affect our efficiency.

"That process of moving out would also cause more arguments than the [Tamar site] debate presently going on in the legislature."

Tsang noted that the lengthy time required for replanning would delay the completion of the headquarters and fail to meet urgent demands for the creation of more jobs in the construction industry. Besides, he added, there was already a proposal to build a cruise terminal and a multi-purpose stadium in southeast Kowloon, which should help boost development in the area.

His answer still failed to please another DAB legislator, Choy So-yuk.

He insisted the lack of public facilities in Central would turn it into a dead city during late night hours, like north Wan Chai.

"The chief executive said in his opening speech that the government should have the courage to review and rectify its decisions.

"So will he consider replanning the Tamar site and make it a more lively, energetic and easily accessible area?" Choy asked.

Tsang insisted Tamar will be his only choice. "I hope everybody can stop arguing about this," he said.

"We endorsed the land-use zoning plan of Central in 2000 and the construction of the new government headquarters at Tamar in 2003. These were the result of a public consensus.

"Of course, it is impossible that this decision will satisfy every individual in society."

He said the government was always being criticized for not making prompt decisions, which was why the government decided to act on the Tamar site project.

He insisted people would have sufficient recreation areas at the site as the new headquarters and legislative council building would only occupy about two hectares of land, leaving more than 10 hectares of recreational space.

Tsang also told Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat, in reply to a question, that the government headquarters would not exceed 160 meters in height so as to lessen its impact on the skyline.

After the session, DAB chairman Ma Lik said the party had never opposed the building of the headquarters at Tamar, but merely wanted the government to consider the feasibility of the southeast Kowloon site.

"We hope the government will also consider our proposal and study the pros and cons of both Tamar and Kai Tak," he said.

Ma said that his party caucus would discuss next week whether or not to support the government when it seeks Legco approval of funding for the headquarters project in June.

"If the government could ... at least relocate some of the government offices to the southeast Kowloon area, we would actively consider supporting the government in the voting exercise," Ma said.

Liberal Party chairman James Tien said his party would support the Tamar site.

"In a small city like Hong Kong, we should not have several government buildings.

"I believe most taxpayers would not want to see the government spending public revenue to construct several new headquarters," Tien said.

Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat said that, as Tsang had reacted positively to the party's demand to build a smaller headquarters, they will consider its funding request.

hkskyline

March 31st, 2006, 05:22 PM

The Tamar argument that fails to convince
31 March 2006
South China Morning Post

A pattern has emerged for Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's question-and-answer sessions in the Legislative Council. His opening statements have been akin to mini-policy addresses, containing initiatives that naturally seize public attention. When he last appeared in January, Mr Tsang's surprise announcement that civil servants would adopt a five-day week dominated the news for weeks. Yesterday, his statements about pressing ahead with plans to build a new government headquarters at Tamar marked the launch of an intensifying campaign to win public opinion over the controversial project.

By stressing the need for both the government and the Legislative Council to heed public opinion, the chief executive subtly put the blame on legislators for their incessant rows with his administration. His inclusion of specific pledges in his opening remarks not only projected an image of being a strong leader trying to crack difficult issues, but also set the line of questioning by legislators.

Rather than putting him on the spot, legislators' questions have presented Mr Tsang, the skilful communicator, with opportunities to make his case directly to the public. On issues such as Tamar, central slaughtering of chickens, air pollution, a minimum wage, fair competition and the West Kowloon cultural complex, he eloquently outlined his vision and called for community consensus.

On Tamar, the chief executive rejected the views of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong that the government headquarters should be sited at the old Kai Tak airport site in southeast Kowloon. He argued that Hong Kong was a small place, and that siting the government headquarters, Legco and Court of Final Appeal within the central business district would be more efficient and conducive to maintaining our status as a financial centre. He even turned the tables on the legislators, noting that it was an old project that they had approved in 2003, and that southeast Kowloon may not be an area they would like to move to.

But his argument on Tamar is unconvincing. The whole point about relocating the government headquarters out of Central is decentralisation. Central is not the geographical centre of Hong Kong, but its dominance as the central business district has incurred environmental and social costs close to breaking point.

A few Legco panels might have approved the project three years ago, but the council and the public are entitled to change their minds. After all, the project has not started, and critics have since raised serious concerns about its scale and long-term implications on the look and feel of the area and the waterfront.

Nor is the project as urgent as Mr Tsang has made it out to be. The argument that work needs to get under way now to help sustain economic recovery is dubious. Creating employment is a valid policy objective, but the rationale for building a project that will become a lasting icon - or eyesore - should not be contingent upon the need to generate several thousand jobs over the next few years.

The government is said to have secured support for the project from an increasing number of legislators. The community can only hope that both the administration and Legco will really take public opinion into account, as Mr Tsang said they should do, and take time to make sure that we get the development of the harbour right.

Quality of life, sharing the fruits of success, and economic prosperity - the three themes under which the chief executive packaged his policy highlights yesterday - certainly encapsulated key aspirations of Hong Kong people. But as various legislators rightly pointed out, what the public wants is real and tangible progress. Their expectations might not be entirely fair, as many policy issues do take time to resolve. Unfortunately, Mr Tsang is most likely to be able to deliver on a project that should be handled with the least haste - Tamar.

hkskyline

April 1st, 2006, 06:05 PM

Tsang privately urges tycoons to back Tamar
1 April 2006
South China Morning Post

Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has privately lobbied a leading business forum to support building a new government headquarters at the Tamar site, sources familiar with their meeting say.

The chief executive used the meeting to express his dissatisfaction at the lack of support from patrons of the Harbour Business Forum for the controversial project, they said.

Among those meeting Mr Tsang two weeks ago were Hongkong and Shanghai Bank chairman Vincent Cheng Hoi-chuen and top managers of Sun Hung Kai Properties, Jardine Matheson and the Swire Group.

One of the sources, a harbour planner, said: "Mr Tsang told the tycoons that he wasn't happy about the forum's demand for a comprehensive review on the planning of the Central harbourfront.

"Mr Tsang said the planning of the Central waterfront area was approved by the Executive Council in 2000 and it was unnecessary to conduct another review.

"He also made clear the government would like to see a cultural hub in West Kowloon and a cruise terminal in Kai Tak."

The forum had sought the meeting with Mr Tsang two months ago to voice its concerns about development around the harbour.

"Mr Tsang turned the meeting into his lobbying session on Tamar and other harbour projects," the planner said. "Everybody was very quiet after the meeting."

The meeting took place in the same week that officials were engaged in heavy lobbying of harbour activists and pro-democracy legislators to support a scaled-down proposal for a government headquarters.

A government source stressed that the administration was determined to push the project through. "We can negotiate on how the headquarters should be built, but there is no room for discussion on where it should be built. We do not need any further review of planning on the Central waterfront," he said.

The chief executive strongly defended the Central reclamation and building of a government headquarters at Tamar at Legco on Thursday, expressing hopes that members would support its "early implementation".

The forum, a coalition of 120 leading companies and business groups, was formed in June.

The forum has expressed concerns at the huge "ground-scraper" developments planned for the Central reclamation, and voiced fears the headquarters at Tamar would be too large.

A spokeswoman for the Chief Executive's Office and HSBC spokesman David Hall confirmed the meeting had taken place.

Mr Hall said: "It was a private meeting and I am unable to tell [you] what was discussed." He said the forum would continue its harbour campaign.

A harbour walk from Tsim Sha Tsui to Hunghom will be held on April 26.

hkskyline

April 1st, 2006, 06:07 PM

'Secret' report on HQ revamp released
1 April 2006
South China Morning Post

A "secret study" on the feasibility of redeveloping the Central Government Offices was finally released yesterday after two months of condemnation and accusations from the Legislative Council.

The study was commissioned through the Government Property Agency in 1990 to examine the options for redeveloping the Central Government Offices West Wing in Ice House Street.

The existence of such a report was disclosed by the South China Morning Post in February.

The report estimated the cost of the project, including demolition, at $2.25 billion, yielding 100,000 square metres of gross floor area for government use within three years.

The 10,500-square-metre West Wing site, it said, was "grossly underdeveloped".

It said the redevelopment would make "optimum use" of the site to maximise the development potential in a way that was "practicable and desirable". It suggested the government invite developers to take part, opening 57,500 square metres of floor space to private use, thus generating $424 million in rent every year.

The report will be discussed by the Legislative Council's panel on planning, lands and works on Monday.

Legislator Kwok Ka-ki said the on-site redevelopment was more viable than the Tamar proposal, which would take $6 billion and five years to finish.

"Despite repeated requests from legislators, the government has never specified how much office space is needed for expansion," Mr Kwok said.

"It has never explained how much extra gross floor area can be provided under the Tamar project, either.

"One hundred thousand square metres of space is vast - it should be enough to accommodate government staff. And it's more cost-effective to redevelop existing buildings. It is obviously a more viable option."

hkskyline

April 4th, 2006, 04:05 AM

Vote reflects frustration over Tamar
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Lawmakers frustrated with the administration's failure to deliver details on the proposed government headquarters at Tamar have passed a confrontational motion in the Legislative Council, but without the support of representatives from two key political parties.

Disappointed with the government's refusal to abide by a previous motion requesting a checklist of all government documents relating to the development of a new headquarters, independent lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki moved a motion recommending members of the Central waterfront review subcommittee hold off on backing the Tamar project until further information can be provided.

"Before the government can clearly state the arrangement and the planning issue of the present central government offices, and carries out a proper environmental impact assessment, and clearly states the urgency and need for building a new government headquarters at Tamar, this committee cannot support the building of the central government offices at Tamar," the motion stated.

The motion was passed by three lawmakers: Kwok, Albert Chan (independent) and Alan Leong (Civic Party). Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Wing- tat and Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong lawmaker Choy So-yuk - both present when copies of the motion were distributed - left the meeting before the vote.

The motion comes amid speculation that Chief Executive Donald Tsang has been intensifying pressure "behind the scenes" on political parties and leading businesses to back the Tamar project, in time for the June 23 vote by the Finance Committee.

At a press conference earlier, Civic Exchange chief executive officer and former lawmaker Christine Loh said her request to meet with Tsang was rejected last week because she did not support the project.

"I met him at a small private luncheon last Friday, and so I took the opportunity to ask him whether it would be possible to meet with him for a private discussion to talk about the Central outline zoning plan and Tamar," Loh said.

"He replied, and I quote: `I would only talk to you if you agree with me."'

Nevertheless, Loh and more than 20 other activists and members of the public marched into the subcommittee meeting to lobby lawmakers to join their cause.

Before her discreet exit from the meeting, Choy told government officials she hoped the administration would listen to the public's cry.

"The government should treat their views as different views, not as opposition," she said.

"These people are working hard to make Hong Kong a better place. They are not trying to overthrow you."

Leong voiced a similar opinion, saying he hoped the administration would "not treat objections as noise, or objectors as enemies."

Leong added the administration should furnish the public with details on the office space breakdown for the proposed headquarters "as soon as possible so that the points brought up today can be addressed and the administration can really convince the public."

But Deputy Director of Administration Susan Mak remained firm and said the subcommittee would be furnished with information regarding space allocation in late April, when the government is due to release its finance proposal for the project. Among the deputations in attendance Monday, only Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees' General Union chairman Choi Chun-wa expressed complete support for the project, saying it would help create badly needed jobs.

"The longer we debate, the longer people are out of jobs. This project will create many jobs for us," he said.

"No more debate, we are desperate and we need jobs."

Other deputations, while expressing sympathy, remained unswayed by the sector's plea. "While we're all sympathetic to the plight of the construction workers, perhaps that's a structural issue and should be addressed separately, not something to drive this project forward," resident Vicki Lukins said.

Meanwhile, in an interview on RTHK Monday Tsang reiterated that the government had "sufficient objective reasons" for the building of the new headquarters, and equated the Tamar project to strong governance.

"This project was approved years ago but was put on hold in 2003 because of cash flow problems. Now we need to make a decision."

hkskyline

April 7th, 2006, 05:58 AM

DAB Tamar U-turn for public good
Friday, April 07, 2006
Hong Kong Standard

Putting public interest above politics was the reason for the sudden reversal of policy by the main pro-Beijing party to support the new government headquarters proposal at Tamar, a lawmaker insisted.

Lau Kong-wah of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong told the Legislative Council Finance Committee the 10 DAB lawmakers supported the creation of a new post to coordinate the plan.

Lau admitted the U-turn came after Chief Executive Donald Tsang's attendance Tuesday at the party's meeting, where he offered an olive branch in the form of a "core partnership relationship for long-term cooperation on all issues."

Lau said: "The people's interests steered us to support the Tamar plan funding request. Public aspirations had indicated a strong wish for an expeditious completion of the project regardless of the site's location."

Two days after Tsang's visit, the party announced its backing for the new post after receiving a written reply from Director of Administration Elizabeth Tse pledging the government will take into account the DAB proposal to build the headquarters in southeast Kowloon in the final report of all possible sites, to be made public in June.

khoojyh

April 7th, 2006, 09:46 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/bs_lover_boy/Forum%20uploads/reclaim.jpg[/QUOTE]

Victoria Habour-------------> Victoria River :runaway:

hkskyline

April 7th, 2006, 04:00 PM

Number crunch
Donald Tsang is determined to push the first phase of the Tamar plan through Legco in a show of strong governance.
Chris Yeung examines whether he has the votes he needs
6 April 2006
South China Morning Post

A temporary venue for activities ranging from the 1997 handover ceremony to trade fairs and outdoor film shows in the past nine years, the Tamar site has been condemned as a disreputable landmark of the beleaguered Tung Chee-hwa administration.

Refraining from revisiting the past official dilly-dallying over the plan to build a new government headquarters at Tamar, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was full of determination in the past week, hoping to fast-track the plan as a showcase of strong governance.

"This government," he told the Legislative Council during question time last week, "has often been told we had discussion without making decisions, made decisions without implementation." The message is unambiguous: now is the time for action.

Mr Tsang insisted Legco gave consent to the project three years ago "but there is still opposition today. I think that has gone overboard."

Against the backdrop of criticism by former premier Zhu Rongji directed at the indecisiveness of the Tung administration, nine years on, the fate of the Tamar site will be put to a vote tomorrow when the government seeks Legislative Council approval for the creation of a directorate post for co-ordinating the new government headquarters project.

Although approval won't be sought until June for major funding for the multibillion-dollar plan, tomorrow's vote is seen as an indicator of the stance of major parties.

Fears of a Legco veto have prompted the director of the Chief Executive's Office, John Tsang Chun-wah, to conduct negotiations with two major parties for a compromise in the past few weeks.

The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has insisted the new headquarters should be seated in southeast Kowloon, referring to the Kai Tak site. The Democratic Party, which previously backed the Tamar plan, warned the party might now oppose the plan if its five-point counterproposal was not heeded.

Support from one of the two major factions is crucial to securing a majority for its passage in Legco. The DAB has stood firm on its Kai Tak model. Core members hinted they would not necessarily oppose the Tamar plan if the government could come up with concrete plans to rejuvenate Kai Tak. The Democrats have also indicated room for conditional support. Chairman Lee Wing-tat said this week: "We do not oppose for the sake of opposition."

While the government and the two parties were moving closer to a deal, environmentalists and a business lobby have cautioned against massive development in the area, which they say would aggravate air pollution and cause serious traffic jams. They have called for a thorough review of the development plan for the Central harbourfront area.

A senior government source said: "Putting the Tamar plan back on the drawing board is a non-starter. We've finished all the planning procedures. The next step is to go to the Finance Committee for funding.

"It's hard to say whether it will get enough votes in Legco. Things keep changing. Just look at the Legco vote on the constitutional reform blueprint," he said, referring to the embarrassing defeat of the government.

Defending the Tamar site as the best option, the chief executive has argued that putting the three branches - executive, legislature and judiciary - together would enhance efficiency. It would be fitting to put the new government headquarters near Central, a symbol of the city's financial centre, he said. Importantly, the plan will create more than 2,700 jobs for the construction sector, which has not fully recovered from the 1998 economic downturn.

But a high-ranking government official was doubtful about the way the decision on the Tamar plan had been made.

"Yes, the issue has dragged on for many years. But it's not a case where we have ongoing discussion on the merits and demerits of the plan. Have we provided various options and made comparisons? Have we fully assessed its impact on society as a whole? Have we seriously studied the southeast Kowloon model?

"I wonder why we need to put so many civil servants in Central. Some bureaus and departments should be relocated in other districts to better suit the needs of their work.

"Few places in the world have their government headquarters in the city centre. Like the West Kowloon cultural district project, the Tamar plan should start afresh," said the official.

Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, an Executive Council member and a political scientist, said the public did not seem enthusiastic about the debate on where the government headquarters should be seated.

"People don't seem to have strong views one way or another. Probably the truth is that there is no absolute answer to the question of which is a better location."

He said the government position on the Tamar plan had been clear and consistent. Its thinking is that extra office space is badly needed. Building a headquarters on the Tamar site could free up the Central Government Offices buildings and the Murray Building for redevelopment.

"The situation remains as it has been {hellip} Government is adamant it has made its case clear. The DAB has explained its alternative model well. Environmental groups have stated their position," Professor Cheung said.

"Given one or two more years for debate, the arguments will perhaps remain the same. I can understand why the government wants to take the project forward. There's no massive infrastructure project in the near future. Government needs to keep public works spending going if it wants to create jobs," he said.

Unless the public agrees to leave the Tamar site as it is, Professor Cheung said it would make more sense for the government to be the developer to ensure concerns such as the protection of harbour views were addressed.

The Democratic Party's Mr Lee said his members would consider supporting a middle-of-the-road package that includes drastically reducing the scale of the new government headquarters and keeping the Central Government Offices buildings for conservation.

"The idea of turning the Tamar site into a huge recreation park sounds good. But I don't think the government will agree, even if we vote against the new government headquarters plan. It will lead to nowhere."

Mr Lee said the Democrats were approached by John Tsang last month for discussion on a compromise. "[The] DAB has stood firm against the plan. There's a genuine possibility the project could be vetoed at Legco. We [the Democrats] are ready to be flexible if they respond positively to our demands."

The Democratic Party has proposed turning the offices at Lower Albert Road into a museum. "There's a lot of collective memory about the open space outside government headquarters, where tens of thousands of people have staged demonstrations. It should be saved from demolition," he said.

DAB vice-chairman Lau Kong-wah maintained on Monday its proposal to site the new headquarters in Kai Tak would serve the best interests of society. "The Tamar site can generate huge sums of revenue for the treasury. Officials will of course feel inconvenienced [if they have to move to Kai Tak]. But the overall interest of people is first and foremost in our consideration."

Tuesday, however, saw signs the DAB might make a U-turn, after the chief executive took the unprecedented step of joining the party's central committee meeting to lobby for support.

Chairman Ma Lik praised Mr Tsang for his sincerity; the chief executive described the government-DAB relationship as a "core partnership".

The central committee said its party caucus in Legco could consider voting in favour of the Tamar posting tomorrow, if government responded actively to its southeast Kowloon plan.

Political scientist Ivan Choy Chi-keung said: "Mr Tsang has already prepared a golden staircase for the DAB to climb down [from its opposition to the Tamar plan]."

FM 2258

April 7th, 2006, 04:12 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/bs_lover_boy/Forum%20uploads/reclaim.jpg

Victoria Habour-------------> Victoria River :runaway:

I think they should fill in those yellow and green areas. Is that what they're going to go ahead and do?

hkskyline

April 7th, 2006, 04:45 PM

I doubt they'll do the yellow part. There was a lot of opposition for the Central Phase 3 Reclamation already. Even some of the green on the Kowloon side is contentious.

hkskyline

April 8th, 2006, 04:33 AM

Go-ahead for job brings Tamar HQ that little bit closer
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Saturday, April 08, 2006

After months of intense lobbying by the government, lawmakers have approved funding for an administrative post to oversee the implementation of the Tamar project, bringing one step closer to reality the administration's proposal to build its headquarters at the prime waterfront site.

The Finance Committee Friday engaged in a heated two-hour debate over the HK$115,000 government post, which was earlier approved by a subcommittee in February.

The proposal passed easily 36 to 8, with pro-democracy lawmaker Frederick Fung of the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, as the lone abstention.

Among the supporters were 11 lawmakers from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

They had changed their stance after Chief Executive Donald Tsang attended the party's meeting Tuesday to push for a "core partnership relationship for long-term cooperation on all issues." Party member Lau Kong-wah told committee members Friday: "Originally, we were against the creation of the post, but recently we had a discussion with the administration on whether the post could consider other options, such as the party's opinion to build at Southeast Kowloon instead.

"Our only criteria is that by June, the government makes public all its findings."

Lau's statement angered more than a few lawmakers, who accused the party of making excuses.

"I don't know what was said to the DAB to change their minds, but the government should tell the public and the DAB clearly whether it has decided to build at Tamar, or whether it is still studying other options," said independent lawmaker Albert Chan.

Committee chairman Emily Lau agreed with Chan, demanding Director of Administration Elizabeth Tse explain why the government had earlier indicated its "mind was set," but was now saying it had an "open mind."

Tse admitted: "I don't think we can say we have an open mind. I don't think there can be any negotiation about building at Southeast Kowloon. We want to persuade parties that Tamar is the right choice."

The responsibility of lobbying the remaining opposition parties, Tse said, would go to the holder of the new post.

She added, however, that the government would still "look at" and "actively analyze" different views put forth by members of the public.

Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Frederick Ma reminded members that the project would create an estimated 2,700 new jobs for the construction sector.

"No project, no jobs," he said. "If you don't give your blessing, then fewer jobs will be created."

But neither Ma nor Tse could guarantee that the project would use local labor and materials - as suggested by labor constituency lawmakers - saying that World Trade Organization agreements prohibited favoring local workers.

Those who opposed the proposal - including five members of the Civic Party and independent lawmakers Kwok Ka-ki, Albert Chan and "Long- hair" Leung Kwok-hung - remained firm despite the fact that they were a minority.

"The government should have understood long ago that its planning mechanism is outdated," Civic Party lawmaker Alan Leong said.

"In the past eight to 10 years, civic society has wanted more participating in planning."

Leung followed by questioning the practicality of approving the post before the project, calling it a "waste of resources on something that may not materialize."

And Chan waxed biblical, equating the chief executive to God.

"For a devout Christian, all honor belongs to God," he said.

"In Hong Kong, a lot of honor, power and privileges rests with the chief executive. Now the last remaining prime site is going to be built into government offices to give greater honor to him."

After the meeting, Kwok said he was "disappointed" but "not surprised" by the results.

"It's political reality. Most of the members who voted are not thinking about planning issues, but their own political agenda," he said.

"They don't have any principles at all."

hkskyline

April 10th, 2006, 12:42 AM

Tamar plan flaws outlined
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Monday, April 10, 2006

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20060410/tamar.jpg

Braving fickle skies and droves of Sunday shoppers, a handful of determined lawmakers took to the bustling streets of Mong Kok to enlist the public's support in their quest to halt the Tamar development project.

Braving fickle skies and droves of Sunday shoppers, a handful of determined lawmakers took to the bustling streets of Mong Kok to enlist the public's support in their quest to halt the Tamar development project.

The Democratic Party's Lee Wing- tat, the Civic Party's Alan Leong and independent lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki jointly hosted an open-air forum to outline the main issues of the debate over the government's proposal to build its headquarters at the waterfront site.

The forum took place just two days after the Legislative Council's Finance Committee approved funding for a HK$115,000 administrative post to oversee implementation of the project.

Lee, whose party voted in support of the post, said the government still had to answer a number of issues before it could win the party's approval for the project - including concerns about the density of the buildings, the amount of open space, pedestrian accessibility to the harbor, and preserving the existing headquarters as a historical site.

"We supported the post, but it does not mean we'll support giving the government HK$4 billion to HK$5 billion in June," he said. "We hope by then they will have more detailed answers to the points we have brought up."

He called on the government to initiate an "active dialogue" with the public, saying he felt administrative officials and concern groups had reached an "impasse" in their discussions as "neither side appears to be listening."

Leong said: "People want to know that 30 or 50 years down the road, the next generation will be enjoying open public areas, not walking in a perpetual marketplace."

After explaining the Civic Party opposed the project because the government has failed to answer inquiries concerning its urgency and scale, Leong stood up and fired a barrage of questions at the gathering crowd.

"Does that piece of land belong to us? Don't you want to know who will be moving into it? Do you want to be able to walk to the waterfront? Are you satisfied with the information the government has given us thus far? Have you voiced your opinion yet?" Leong said.

"If you have opinions, express them in the next two months. Make some noise."

Kwok held up a poster illustrating the site, saying the government's plans to construct buildings between 130 meters and 160m tall will "create a wall" between Admiralty and the harbor.

"The government thinks it is compromising because it originally proposed 180m," he said. "But their approach is unclear, they have furnished us with very little information."

Bystanders said they felt the forum was "informative" and "compelling." Manager Yu Yaofeng, 28, said: "I had heard about Tamar before, but I didn't know a great deal about the issues."

hkskyline

April 11th, 2006, 06:48 AM

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051002/OCT02-S01-043.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051002/OCT02-S01-053.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051003/OCT03-S01-317.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/hongkong/20051003/OCT03-S01-320.jpg

spicytimothy

April 11th, 2006, 10:51 AM

It's times like these that I wish the gov't more powerful and the Legco less antagonistic...

build them tall, build them all!

Marco Polo

April 11th, 2006, 12:11 PM

All this recent land reclamation is a disgrace to Hong Kong. It simply makes is uglier and less friendly.
Sorry.

pookgai

April 11th, 2006, 01:08 PM

When is the new Star Ferry Terminal opening?

hkskyline

April 14th, 2006, 05:18 AM

Hong Kong harbours deep ambitions for wasteland sites
Plans to transform prime areas will put the chief executive to the test
By TOM MITCHELL
12 April 2006
Financial Times

On days when the pollution is less severe, executives with a bird's-eye view of Hong Kong's harbour can discern three great scars on the waterfront.

To the west, more than 100 acres of land have lain fallow for five years despite being designated as the site of a future "cultural district". To the east, golfers hone their driving range skills on the abandoned runway of Hong Kong's old Kai Tak airport, which closed in 1998.

And in the heart of the territory's central business and financial district, an empty expanse of Tarmac marks the site of the former shelter - long since filled in - where Royal Navy ships once moored and where the Hong Kong government intends to build its new HKDollars 4.5bn (Dollars 580m) headquarters building.

The Tamar site, as it is known, too has been abandoned for almost a decade, only sporadically serving as a venue for an outdoor film festival, rock concert or travelling circus.

Since being selected last July to serve out the final two years of the term abandoned by his predecessor, Tung Chee-hwa, Hong Kong chief executive Donald Tsang has seized on two of these sites as testing grounds for what he has promised will be a new era of "strong government" and "effective execution".

His administration, however, is already on the back foot. In February it said it would revamp its plans for the West Kowloon Cultural District, which was to host facilities run by some of the world's great museums, after local developers balked at the government's terms.

Coming two months after the Hong Kong's legislature rejected a limited constitutional reform package, the West Kowloon climbdown marked the second big defeat of Mr Tsang's young administration.

Now the focus is on the controversial new government headquarters at Tamar. Mr Tsang has pushed the project to the top of his agenda, in spite of concerns from a range of civic and professional groupings about the environmental impact the new headquarters and a neighbouring landfill project will have on Hong Kong's already blighted waterfront.

A defeat would be the third strike for Mr Tsang, leaving him with precious few accomplishments less than a year before he seeks re-election to a full five-year term and it would also invite unflattering comparisons with his predecessor's ineffectual administration.

"If Tamar fails, then what did he mean by 'strong governance'?" asks Democratic party chairman Lee Wing-tat, who has provisionally supported the new headquarters project. The chief executive's office counters that the West Kowloon Cultural District will be completed on schedule.

"We have opted for a new development model and a steering panel was formed last week," a spokesman said. The Tamar project, he added, is merely being revived three years after Hong Kong's Sars outbreak forced its suspension.

Failure on Tamar would augur badly for a raft of further initiatives that Mr Tsang intends to pursue. Some of these, including the possible introduction of a minimum wage and a new competition policy, are opposed by powerful commercial interests in the territory.

The December constitutional reform package required two-thirds support from Hong Kong's legislature because it involved changes to the territory's mini-constitution, or Basic Law.

With 25 seats in the 60-member legislature, the pro-democracy camp found itself in the unusual position of having enough votes to block a government bill, which it deemed too modest.

For Tamar, Mr Tsang only needs the endorsement of a simple majority of the legislature. But even this target is proving elusive, illustrating the rising power of Hong Kong's political parties.

The pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), which has traditionally supported the government on policy issues, wants the new headquarters to be built at Kai Tak, the old airport.

The government hopes to build an ocean liner terminal there instead, and says a preliminary zoning plan for the area will be ready by June.

The DAB's reticence has forced Mr Tsang to scramble to secure the support of a normally automatic ally and its nine votes in the legislature. While a final funding vote on the headquarters building is not scheduled until June, on Friday the government secured Legco approval to appoint a project director.

With the DAB's initial opposition to Tamar softening, Mr Tsang will likely get his new headquarters building. But that will still leave hanging the future of two other wastelands on what used to be one of the world's most beautiful harbours.

_00_deathscar

April 14th, 2006, 05:46 AM

FM 2258

April 14th, 2006, 08:39 AM

Getting a building on reclaimed land must be EXTREMELY expensive.

hkth

April 14th, 2006, 11:24 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/bs_lover_boy/Forum%20uploads/reclaim.jpg

Victoria Habour-------------> Victoria River :runaway:[/QUOTE]

I think they should fill in those yellow and green areas. Is that what they're going to go ahead and do?

I doubt they'll do the yellow part. There was a lot of opposition for the Central Phase 3 Reclamation already. Even some of the green on the Kowloon side is contentious.

I agree with most of the hkskyline's points as the Gov't has already dropped the most of the yellow part of the reclamation as it was the plan for assuming huge population growth of HK. But I've no idea if there would be new reclamation plans for the Western part of the HK Island because the Route 4 (HK's highway) is connecting the western and the southwestern part of HK Island. Also, the remaining sections of Route 10, which is connecting between the HK Island, Lantau Island, Siu Lam and Lau Fau Shan would be built on those reclamed land. There're still some unknowns for those. :|

There are some mistakes from the Planning Department's map. The western part of Kowloon Peninsula and the SE part of tht Tsing Yi Island has been reclaimed for the Container Terminial. :|

hkth

April 14th, 2006, 11:29 AM

All this recent land reclamation is a disgrace to Hong Kong. It simply makes is uglier and less friendly.
Sorry.

Agreed!

Leave the flipping harbour as it is.

Soon we'll be able to swim across comfortably - and before you know it, Hong Kong's claim to "World's most beautiful harbour" will have disappeared. It's ridiculous.

But do you know most of the HK's skyscrapers were built on the reclamed land? Don't forget HK is a hilly city and HK had to reclam the land in the past for making the population growth and the economy growth! :speech:

Nevertheless, I do agree that the reclamation has to be limited in the future as most people in HK are really concern the environment and the coastal skyline. :|

myf282828

April 14th, 2006, 12:04 PM

HK needs Victory Harbour to be looked good. If the harbour getting narrower it won't make HK looked as good as today.

_00_deathscar

April 14th, 2006, 02:05 PM

But do you know most of the HK's skyscrapers were built on the reclamed land? Don't forget HK is a hilly city and HK had to reclam the land in the past for making the population growth and the economy growth! :speech:

Nevertheless, I do agree that the reclamation has to be limited in the future as most people in HK are really concern the environment and the coastal skyline. :|

Yea I realise that, but isn't the harbour narrow enough as it is?

What exactly are they aiming for here? A harbour narrow enough so that ants can jump across it?

hkth

April 14th, 2006, 03:12 PM

What exactly are they aiming for here? A harbour narrow enough so that ants can jump across it?

Most properly use those reclaimed land for the properties. :|

hkskyline

April 14th, 2006, 05:28 PM

Getting a building on reclaimed land must be EXTREMELY expensive.
Not really. 2 IFC is built on newly reclaimed land. As long as the bedrock isn't too deep, then construction costs shouldn't be much affected.

hkth

April 15th, 2006, 08:48 AM

RTHK news:
Government again urged to modify plans for new HQ at Tamar 2006-04-15 HKT 11:12

The government has again been urged to modify plans for its proposed new headquarters at Tamar. The call comes from the Chairman of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee, Professor Lee Chack-fan, in the RTHK programme: "Hong Kong Letter". He said that while the Tamar site was suitable for the relocation of the government's Central Government Offices, space should be reserved for other purposes. Professor Lee also called on the government to build a harbourfront corridor linking Wanchai and Tamar for public leisure purposes.

_00_deathscar

April 15th, 2006, 09:06 AM

WTF!

That's what I'm trying to do....(for my harbour design competition).

By the way, wouldn't the Government site at the waterfront look really nice from a skyline point of view?

Be similar to the Fullerton in Singapore (although differente purposes) - but if they used the same classical sort of design for it and lit it up with a golden hue light.

hkth

April 15th, 2006, 09:15 AM

Delete it!!!

hkskyline

April 16th, 2006, 05:44 PM

Central bypass options set out Link to Wan Chai will eat up at least 11.5 hectares
14 April 2006
South China Morning Post

The proposed Central-Wan Chai bypass will require at least 11.5 hectares of reclamation, a government-commissioned engineering report has found.

Three types of tunnel construction were studied in the report by Maunsell Consultants Asia released yesterday, with two involving the demolition of the Island East Corridor from Victoria Park Road to City Garden in North Point.

The three tunnel options will involve construction costs of between $20 billion and $28 billion and annual recurrent costs of $110 million to $125 million. The tunnel would require 15 hectares to 18.5 hectares of reclamation.

Recreational features including a promenade linking Central and North Point, a green leisure zone, and a waterfront cultural district have been included in all three versions of tunnel option.

Compared with the three tunnel options, the flyover is cheapest, costing only $11 billon to build and $75 million per year in recurrent costs. It also involves the least amount of land reclamation - 11.5 hectares.

However, the consultants concluded that the flyover would have the biggest impact, not only visually but also by imposing constraints on potential harbourfront development. No recommendation was made as to which model the government should adopt.

The report also concluded that the approaches requiring no reclamation were not feasible because of the constraints of existing buildings and infrastructure. A deep tunnel option was also ruled out because it was not technically feasible.

Legislator Kwok Ka-ki said the government had yet to convince the Legislative Council on any of the proposals. "The government has to provide scientific data to prove that there is no alternative to reclamation," he said.

The area of reclamation ranged from 10 hectares for the flyover option to 25 hectares for the road option, according to proposed figures released in January last year. The figures have since been trimmed down following opposition from harbour protection groups.

The report will be discussed by the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee, under the Planning Department, next week.

sharpie20

April 17th, 2006, 02:02 AM

^^^ that's a lot of land wasted for tunnel development, they better find some alternate solutions or else the reclamation project will be mostly wasted.

hkskyline

April 17th, 2006, 03:53 AM

The whole purpose of having more reclamation is to build the underwater bypass and connect the waterfront parklands. Ironically, the plan with the least reclamation will destroy the parkland purpose.

hkskyline

April 19th, 2006, 06:19 AM

Central & Wan Chai Reclamation Plans Map
Includes Shatin-Central Link Alignment
Click for larger version :
http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/about/achievements/regional/images/central.jpg (http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/about/achievements/regional/images/central_a.jpg)

hkskyline

April 19th, 2006, 07:59 PM

Tamar plan scaled down
Hong Kong Standard
Leslie Kwoh
Thursday, April 20, 2006

After months of heated debate, the government has unveiled a scaled- down version of its plan for a controversial HK$5 billion headquarters project at the Tamar site, but opponents insist the administration has "missed the point."
A new paper released Wednesday indicates a 10 percent decrease in floor area requirements from a 2003 estimate to 62,340 square meters of net operating floor area - but that is still a 60 percent increase on that available at the existing SAR Government Headquarters.

"In deriving this latest space requirement estimate, we have exercised the most stringent control," the government said in the paper.

"We have stringently trimmed down bureau requirements, including both staff offices and ancillary facilities."

The scaling back did little to win over the Civic Party, which represents the government's most significant hurdle to securing support for the project after apparent U-turns by both the Democratic Party and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

Civic Party member and lawmaker Alan Leong Kah-kit, who sits on the Legislative Council's planning, lands and works panel, promised "questions would be raised" at next Tuesday's meeting, when the panel is scheduled to discuss the paper.

"I think many issues raised by civic society stakeholders - for example, about traffic, planning, and air quality - are just glossed over," he said.

"So I hope this is just the starting point. In order to engage civic society meaningfully and genuinely, there must be a true dialogue. That is what society deserves."

Leong added that his party is organizing such a dialogue for next month.

The paper also fails to answer environmental and traffic queries raised by local concern groups, said fellow Civic Party lawmaker Audrey Eu Yuet- mee, adding that is one major reason the party cannot support the proposal.

"It's not just about raising enough votes in the Legislative Council, but about answering queries backed by scientific data," she said.

"The government has the duty to sit down and meet these groups."

According to the paper, the traffic and environmental impact of the project will be "insignificant" as the proposed headquarters would only be "a modest office development."

In light of the lowered building height allowance, from 180 meters to between 130 and 160 meters, the development would attract only about 570 additional vehicles during morning and evening peak hours, or 1 percent of Central's total traffic flow, according to the paper.

It also dismisses air-quality concerns raised at a Legco meeting earlier this month, saying unease about a "canyon effect" whereby air circulation is hindered by tall buildings is unfounded as the Environmental Protection Department "has advised that there is no existence of such a canyon in the context of Tamar."

At a press briefing, Deputy Director of Administration Susan Mak Lok Suet- ling confirmed the government has received four construction proposals since launching a prequalification exercise in December and that a contract would be awarded early next year.

When asked whether the public will have a part in the process, however, Mak remained tight-lipped.

"There are many considerations we have to think about, the whole picture, not just the aesthetics," she said.

Civic Party lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah said: "[The new proposal] simply demonstrates convincingly that the government is determined to go it alone without having to be too concerned with how the public thinks about it."

He said the government has failed to respond to his party's demands for long-term planning for Central, and as a result, "at the moment, we have not been told enough to be convinced."

The government's failure to reveal its space requirements in terms of gross floor area may be a sign that "something strange is going on," said an architect, adding that gross floor area includes the entire building floor area while net operating floor area excludes public utility spaces such as staircases, lobbies, and lifts.

hkskyline

April 20th, 2006, 05:56 AM

縮減一成規模政黨企硬叫價
添馬艦五障礙未除
20/04/2006

http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/news/20060420/img/sn05042001_big.jpg

為爭取立法會支持添馬艦興建新政府總部計劃，政府不惜縮減總部一成規模，又考慮把大樓不多於兩成的面積建於地底，以進一步限制高度，盡可能滿足政黨的要求，但仍有「五大障礙」未掃清，令反對計劃的政黨繼續企硬「叫價」，或令計劃獲立法會高票通過的願望落空。

政府昨天向立法會規劃地政及工程事務委員會提交文件，提出添馬艦興建政府總部的最新規劃建議，新方案的淨作業樓面面積為六萬二千三百四十平方米，較○三年的估計下降約一成，只有制訂政策的核心辦公室才遷進新大樓，涉及員工約為三千二百七十人。

新政府總部可節省公帑，政府預計約有五千八百二十平方米外置於商業大廈的辦公地方將會騰出，每年可節省約三千一百八十萬元租金支出；亦會令政府物業可騰出約一萬二千七百五十平方米地方，包括修頓中心、稅務大樓、灣仔大樓內的政府物業等，讓其他分散地點辦公的部門遷入，因而有重置及退租機會，估計可節省開支每年達三千六百一十萬元。但律政司繼續留在金鐘辦公。

大樓高度限160米內
為確保山脊線下有兩成「無建築物遮擋地帶」，大樓高度限制在一百三十米至一百六十米；更考慮在招標文件註明，大部分停車場、機房，及部分共用設施如碎紙室、樓宇管理辦事處等可建於地底，有關設施建築樓面面積約二萬五千八百三十平方米，即大樓最多不超過兩成面積可建於地底。政府消息人士表示，在第三季完成招標後，設計才考慮諮詢公眾。

雖然順應政黨大多數的要求，但仍存有五大障礙，首先是高度限制。政府消息人士指出，地底興建有限制，如成本是地面興建同樣面積的兩倍，需要提供逃生樓梯和通風系統等，亦需更高能源費用。

針對民建聯要求在東南九龍建政府行政中心，但消息人士重申添馬艦是合適地點建政府總部，政府會把啟德用地發展為經濟蓬勃地方，政府不希望兩個工程都拖延。至於勞工界要求採用本地預製組件，政府仍研究法律問題和世貿規定，待六月向立法會財務委員會申請撥款前有決定。

民建聯：無投票意向
儘管政府讓步，但個別政黨仍然「企硬」。民建聯黨團召集人劉江華強調期望政府在東南九龍發展政府行政中心，帶旺當地經濟，在政府公布東南九龍計劃前，現階段沒有投票意向。工聯會立法會議員陳婉嫻原則上支持添馬艦工程，但期望當局交代使用本地預製組件。

民主黨副主席何俊仁直指新方案難以支持，要求最少把總部規模縮減三分之一，並把政府總部原址列為政府博物館。 http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/img/endmarker.gif

hkskyline

April 20th, 2006, 06:15 AM

立會新樓容120席
20/04/2006

http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/news/20060420/img/sn05042002_big.jpg
特首辦搬進新政府總部後，特首不須在禮賓府辦公。資料圖片

[本報訊] 政府為添馬艦工程上馬「搏到盡」，不單止順應外界訴求縮減新政府總部的樓面面積，同時又完全切合立法會行政管理委員會的要求，興建一座總面積達一萬六千零九十平方米的新立法會綜合大樓，預計可容納一百二十個議席。

行政管理委員會成員的李華明認為政府回應了議員的訴求，他說：「長遠計都要咁做，唔通二十年搬一搬咩！」勞工界議員李鳳英則認為政府預計可容納一百二十個議席的空間有「預見性」。

現時的立法會大樓前身是最高法院，八十年代後期轉為立法局使用，大樓的外牆已列為法定古。受制於大樓面積，現時立法會秘書處和議員辦事處的部分辦公室，分散設於附近政府總部西座和商業樓宇。

面積符行管會要求
為解決辦公地方不敷應用、議席及人手增加等問題，立法會要求政府在添馬艦興建新立法會綜合大樓，立法會行政管理委員會更認為新大樓應由低座及不少於一座高座辦公大樓組成，提供合共一萬六千零九十平方米的樓面面積。

政府目前拋出的方案，正正切合行管會的要求。在逾萬平方米的面積中，議員辦公室和設施共四千一百九十平方米，另三千六百四十平方米屬職員辦公室。http://the-sun.orisun.com/channels/img/endmarker.gif

hkskyline

April 21st, 2006, 04:45 AM

Waterfront committee holds line on bypass
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, April 21, 2006

Members of the government-appointed Harbourfront Enhancement Committee have refused to be swayed by the administration's arguments favoring the construction of the proposed Central-Wan Chai bypass in the form of a tunnel.

"This is the biggest test the committee is ever going to face. We are talking about seven or eight years of construction along the waterfront," committee member and property surveyor Nicholas Brooke said Thursday. "If we don't get it right, we are going to get the blame."

Brooke and other members recommended reinstating the flyover proposal and a "shallow water" trunk road proposal as options for consideration.

A report released by government planning consultants last week indicated a strong bias toward three tunnel options, even though a flyover option would be half as expensive and could be completed one year earlier.

Consultants further narrowed down their preference to one tunnel option which they said would be the least expensive (HK$20 billion), take the shortest time to construct (seven years), and require the least amount of reclamation (15 hectares). Moreover, consultants added, it would create the least impact on the traffic and surrounding environment.

"We hope members carefully consider the options in terms of costs, construction time, and environmental impacts," urged Deputy Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Robin Ip Man-fai at Thursday's meeting.

Phyllis Li Chi-miu of the Planning Department added: "Reclamation is the most important factor from a planning point of view."

But Brooke disagreed, insisting that "sustainability for future generations" was the most important requirement.

"Let's set aside reclamation concerns, let's not try to focus too much on cost," he said, adding that the HK$8 billion cost difference between the government's preferred option and the more expensive options was "not a big consequence" when compared with the "long-term implications."

While all three tunnel options share the same alignment - along the Wan Chai and Causeway Bay shoreline - Brooke said he personally favored the more expensive tunnel option because it will allow for a wider harborfront promenade, and a larger water recreation and entertainment zone.

However, government officials continued to push members to reach a quick consensus, insisting that time for the project is running out.

Members are expected to brief the Town Planning Board on their progress today before presenting their findings to the Legislative Council in late May.

pookgai

April 21st, 2006, 01:20 PM

Finally, some good news. I think it's pretty obvious that the most expensive option is the most beneficial to Hong Kong in the long-run.

Hope this gets done as quickly as possible. It's such a shame that the harbourfront will be "under construction" for the next 7 years or so =(

hkskyline

April 27th, 2006, 01:08 AM

Lawmakers floored as Tamar HQ soars in size
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Lawmakers were shocked Tuesday to discover that figures previously released by the administration concerning the proposed new government headquarters at Tamar were "misleading."

Officials revealed that the gross floor area of the proposed HK$5 billion complex at the prime waterfront site is estimated to be 120,400 square meters - nearly double the area cited by the government last week.

An administrative paper released last Wednesday indicated that the new complex would be scaled back 10 percent from previous estimates to 62,340 square meters of net floor operating area, a term that excludes corridors, restrooms, stairwells and lift areas.

"Gross floor area includes everything - like the car park and electrical plant rooms - so the discrepancy can be very great, but it also depends on the type of buildings involved," explained Director of Architectural Services Yue Chi-hang.

This new figure would reduce the efficiency of the complex to well below- average, according to experts.

A building's efficiency is calculated by dividing the net floor operating area by the gross floor area. The resulting ratio - in this case, nearly 50 percent - determines how well a building's space is used. In Hong Kong, 75 percent is deemed "low efficiency," said one local property surveyor.

Moreover, as government buildings are not subject to the Buildings Ordinance, officials are not obliged to reveal full details of the floor area and may use terms such as "gross floor area" loosely, the surveyor said.

The revelation prompted more than a dozen lawmakers to fire questions at the administration at Tuesday's meeting of the panel on planning, lands and works.

Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pei-chun questioned the project's HK$5 billion pricetag - plus the HK$48.5 million recurrent expenditure - which adds up to more than HK$40,000 per square meter, according to the latest floor area figure. He asked for a detailed breakdown of costs.

"The Liberal Party supports your project, but that does not mean you can have free access to public money," he said. "We don't support the budget."

Project Director of the Architectural Services Department Peter Yuen Ka- tat said construction will cost about HK$13,000 per square meter, and that furniture (HK$500 million) as well as other facilities will add to that cost.

Pressed further, he admitted he could not offer the exact breakdown of the HK$5 billion price and will have to respond later.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker Cheung Hok- ming, from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, demanded to know whether the government had studied the sustainability of the new headquarters to ensure that there will be no need to build another complex later.

Director of Administration Elizabeth Tse Man-yi said: "In terms of sustainable development, we don't have any concrete figures now. But we don't expect to have another new central government complex built 10 years later, so we are talking long-term planning."

She gave a similarly vague response to Democrat Lee Wing-tat, who asked about plans for the existing government headquarters at Lower Albert Road and Murray Building.

"We have to first see whether the new headquarters can be constructed before we do anything about the two sites," Tse said.

Legislators were skeptical about the government's refusal to provide details on space allocation and demanded officials specify which 3,200 civil servants are to be housed in the new headquarters.

"We have to make sure that all persons in the new complex are staff directly related to policy-making," Tse said, adding that only one third of all staff in policy-related bureaus will qualify for the move.

For example, she said, within the Economic Development and Labour Bureau, the port and maritime development office is "directly related to policy-making" and will be stationed in the new headquarters. The travel registration office, on the other hand, will stay behind.

The lawmakers requested an additional meeting before the administration submits its funding proposal to the public works subcommitee May 24.

DAB lawmaker Choy So-yuk and Independent lawmaker Albert Chan Wai-yip, both made it clear that more information is needed.

Rachmaninov

April 27th, 2006, 04:17 PM

Huh??? So now it's 120,000 sq. metres instead of 60,000??

Weird...

hkskyline

April 28th, 2006, 01:52 AM

Activist quits `useless' post on harbor committee
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, April 28, 2006

Outspoken environmental activist Paul Zimmerman has resigned from the government-appointed Harbourfront Enhancement Committee, saying the administration's refusal to look at the "big picture" in terms of harborfront preservation has rendered his past two years of membership "useless."

"I've spent a lot of time on the committee, and I think it's time wasted," he told members at the committee's quarterly meeting Thursday.

"There are other ways for me to address the issue [of harbor preservation] that would cost me less time and would be more effective than the many hours I've spent here."

Due to a lack of leadership, the two- year-old committee had failed to work as a "proper interface" between the public and the government, he said.

For instance, despite his repeated calls for a review on the Central waterfront area, government members were obstinate about postponing the task until July - after the proposal for a HK$5 billion government headquarters at Tamar is expected to pass through the Legislative Council.

"So I'm not willing to sit here and waste my time if that's the attitude from the other side," he said.

He added that he and other activists would soon be holding several public forums on the planning of the Central harborfront to talk about the "real issues."

Zimmerman's relinquishment of the business representative post on the 29-member committee comes fast on the heels of his resignation in February from the executive committee of the Harbour Business Forum - two events he admits are related.

It also comes at a tense time when politicians and businesses alike are feeling the pressure to back the Tamar proposal, according to sources.

"Now it's up to them to find their own voice, to step up, and to not stand down when the heat gets too hot in the kitchen," Zimmerman said.

He added, in closing: "I look forward to working together with all of you, because I will definitely not shut up outside this committee."

Deputy Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Robin Ip Man-fai responded by gesturing at the handful of officials present at the meeting, insisting the government's support was more than evident.

"The committee has done a great deal in the past few years ... I cannot agree that not enough resources have been put in," he said.

Earlier in the meeting, committee members debated whether legal advice should be sought to ensure reclamation for the proposed Central-Wan Chai bypass corridor would pass the "overriding public need" test, in accordance with a 2004 Court of Final Appeal ruling. Since the ruling, reclamation works in Hong Kong have come to a standstill.

Government officials expressed an eagerness to consult lawyers for clarification on the term "reclamation."

They wondered, for example, whether pilings used to support a flyover or a pier would constitute reclamation as they would technically lie on the seabed.

But property surveyor Nicholas Brooke advised against going into such detail, warning that such an approach would steer the committee off-track.

"I caution against proceeding in too formal a manner and bogging ourselves down in fine print," he said.

"We should focus on the outcomes, and then market these outcomes to groups and persuade them they're in the best interest of Hong Kong. We need to convince them to adopt a pragmatic approach."

Zimmerman agreed, saying the 2004 ruling may not have considered reclamation for public needs, such as piers or other recreational facilities.

"The government is stifled right now. They're so worried about that ruling that they're not coming up with a strategy," he said after the meeting.

"We need to discuss principles during the planning stage - if you build more developments, you'll eventually need more roads, which means more reclamation."

He said that, while the building of the Central-Wan Chai bypass could be excused because it was proposed before the court's ruling, it should not be used as justification to pursue further reclamation in the same manner.

hkskyline

April 29th, 2006, 05:53 PM

Dishonourable politics will not buy Tamar credibility
28 April 2006
South China Morning Post

It is extremely disturbing that the government has been offering all kinds of favours to political parties to gain their support for building its headquarters at Tamar. While unconscionable governments worldwide do this under the pretext "this is politics", it is dishonourable.

The more the Hong Kong government proceeds down this road, the more obvious it is to right-thinking people that it has insufficient justification for the project. An honest approach would be for it to win public support on the merits of the plan.

The government is reminded that power is not a matter of privilege but of responsibility. It owes the public openness and transparency, and it must stop trying to buy its way forward with political favours.

A. CHUNG, Discovery Bay

The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Democratic Party have suggested they will blindly vote in favour of spending $5.13 billion on a building of unknown width, height and depth that will steal the breeze from Admiralty - and the very people who voted for them. By doing so, they have indicated they will not defend our right to clean air.

Tamar has been presented out of the context of the buildings that, taken together, will create a pollution canyon from IFC Two to Victoria Park. In the business community, this would be called a dereliction of fiduciary responsibility and lack of due diligence.

Over the past few months, we have been speaking to the Legislative Council to carefully explain the "street canyon" effect. The concept is simple. Take two tallish buildings, put a road between them, and the pollution is trapped. The government's response is that gaps (roads) in the rows of buildings prevent them from forming street canyons. In other words, our chief executive is telling us that these areas are not pollution canyons because there are roads between the buildings.

The two political parties must tell voters why they are not demanding to see an air ventilation assessment for the entire Central Reclamation Phase III and all the roads on the mountain side. They must do this before they vote billions to give the chief executive an edifice to his glory instead of spending it on a thousand other desperately needed projects.

PHILIP HEUNG, Clear the Air

The proposal to build the new government headquarters at Tamar has been discussed for years. Now that the government wants to go ahead, the community is divided into two main camps. One suggests the site should be put up for auction; the other that it be made a public park.

As a resident, I disagree with the idea of auctioning off the site for commercial use, as the density of the development would be high.

Building a park is a good, but unrealistic, idea. Land in Central is precious and the idea is not in line with the original outline development plan. Also, who would spend some 20 minutes walking from the Wan Chai or Admiralty MTR stations to visit a park when they can go to the easily accessible Chater Garden or Hong Kong Park?

What can take both idealism and reality into account is building civic and community facilities, including the new government complex. Turning the site into a hub of civic activity would attract large numbers of people to the place, as well as to the waterfront promenade and sitting-out area. This way, the park would not become an isolated island.

CHAN TAK-CHOR, chairman, Central and Western District Council

hkskyline

April 30th, 2006, 06:30 AM

Yau Tong project may be downsized
Raymond Wang
28 April 2006
Hong Kong Standard

A large consortium led by Henderson Land is seeking a breakthrough for its planned mega housing project in Yau Tong Bay, estimated to be worth HK$60 billion, after the Kowloon East project stalled last year because of a land reclamation controversy.

Proposals for the much-awaited residential project _ which calls for the reclamation of 12.5 hectares of land from the sea and will transform Yau Tong Bay into a 22-hectare residential and commercial center _ will be submitted to the Town Planning Board within a couple of weeks, Henderson Land said.

If the reclamation is banned, the company said it might just slash the size of the project in order to push ahead with the development of the former shipyard.

"We will discuss with other owners of the Yau Tong Bay site regarding the proposals before submission," Henderson Land property development department general manager Augustine Wong Ho-ming said, without elaborating.

As currently planned, the project will provide 10,000 flats in 40 blocks with a total gross floor area of 9.7 million square feet, of which 1.7 million sq ft will be owned by Henderson.

The project is expected to be one of the biggest in Kowloon, coming in at about two-thirds the size of Tai Koo Shing, the largest development on Hong Kong Island. It will fetch nearly HK$60 billion, based on the almost HK$6,000 per square foot earned by the Canaryside development in Yau Tong. Other consortium members are New World Development, Wharf Holdings and some shipyard and timber mill owners.

Despite receiving land reclamation approval from the Environmental Protection Department in 2002, the project was delayed when the government began reviewing all reclamation projects after a public outcry against filling in the harbor in 2004.

In 2003, a court ruling against reclamation off Wan Chai said that any encroachment into the harbor had to be justified by a demonstrative overriding public need. While this does not cover the Yau Tong area, it did cause the government to rethink its approvals.

But the consortium argued that their reclamation would be positive for Yau Tong Bay, since it would involve cleaning up heavy pollution left over from when the bay was home to a shipyard.

hkth

May 3rd, 2006, 05:04 PM

RTHK News:
New proposal for development of harbourfront 2006-05-03 HKT 18:45

A group of harbour protection activists has unveiled an alternative proposal to develop the Central harbourfront. It proposes splitting the planned government headquarters at Tamar into several smaller buildings and constructing a waterfront boulevard.

ENDOPHINS

May 6th, 2006, 07:16 PM

Central Pier @ 06/05/2006

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v603/ENDOPHINS/New/centralpier.jpg

hkth

May 7th, 2006, 03:35 PM

RTHK news:
Govt defends Tamar construction costs 2006-05-07 HKT 18:59

The government has defended construction costs for the Tamar project. It said 4.8 billion dollars was reasonable and similar to those for other grade-A office buildings in the private sector.

hkth

May 9th, 2006, 05:58 AM

From news.gov.hk:
Tamar project construction costs reasonable (http://news.gov.hk/en/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060503/features/html/060503en06002.htm)

Manila-X

May 9th, 2006, 06:31 AM

Getting a building on reclaimed land must be EXTREMELY expensive.

It is but that's where the city's current tallest building is at.

hkskyline

May 22nd, 2006, 02:44 PM

Review seeks less cluttered waterfront - Means of lowering density of building in Central on agenda
3 May 2006
South China Morning Post

A review aimed at reducing the density of the Central waterfront development, especially the amount of commercial space, will be launched after the government gets the funding it needs to build its new headquarters at Tamar.

The Planning Department has confirmed it will in July commission a consultant to study ways to lower the density of buildings in areas in the third phase of a zoning plan for the Central reclamation.

While Tamar will be excluded from the review, government planners will mainly focus on the four pieces of commercial land that will create millions of square feet of new floor space at the Central waterfront under the plan.

The Legislative Council's Finance Committee will examine the funding for Tamar next month. The government has already secured enough votes for the plans to go ahead, with the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Liberal Party having declared their support to the project.

Political analysts believe the review is Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's latest compromise in his attempts to smooth the way for construction of the Tamar headquarters.

Harbour activists welcomed the review, but said it should have been conducted earlier as damage had already been done.

Ma Ngok, of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said: "The chief executive sees Tamar as his major achievement. If major corporations and developers have problems with [too much] commercial space in Central, and if the government can do something to address their concern, he is prepared to compromise."

The planning of the reclaimed land at Central has been a major concern of many groups such as the Harbour Business Forum, a coalition of 120 leading companies and business groups. The forum met Mr Tsang in March to request he conduct a comprehensive review of the plan.

Mr Tsang used the meeting to express dissatisfaction at the lack of support from the business community for the Tamar development, and also expressed his unhappiness at the request for a review.

A Planning Department spokesman said: "We will examine the design criteria, and refine the urban design framework of the waterfront with Central's landscape and public aspirations. I'm sure it will be less dense than before. But we're not prepared to change any land use. Commercial space will still be commercial space." He said the review would include a comprehensive public consultation exercise, and the result would be incorporated into the land leases.

Paul Zimmerman, convenor of the Designing Hong Kong Harbour District group, said the review should have come two years ago.

"At last, the government has realised the plan has serious problems {hellip} If they had started the review two years ago, we would not need huge roads along the Central waterfront," he said.

hkskyline

May 22nd, 2006, 02:46 PM

Vision to carve up Tamar into five areas presented
Leslie Kwoh
4 May 2006
Hong Kong Standard

In a last-ditch effort to influence lawmakers against issuing a "blank check" for the proposed government headquarters at Tamar, a group of activists has hatched an alternative vision for the site and its surrounding areas that involve simple adjustments while conforming with the administration's current plans.

According to the alternative plans _ unveiled Wednesday by Civic Exchange, Designing Hong Kong Harbour District and World Wildlife Fund _ the 2.2-hectare government complex at Tamar will be broken up into five units, creating more human-scale pedestrian spaces between buildings.

An area for protesters called "Democracy Square" will be situated at the center of the site.

The group said these changes will not increase the cost of the HK$5 billion project, and will lend a more "vibrant" feel to the area compared with the administration's current plans, which place the headquarters on one half of the site and a public square on the other.

The plan retains the controversial dimensions for the headquarters _ a 120,400-square-meter gross floor area and a 20-story building. The Central- Wanchai bypass will also be kept, and no changes will be made to the water- edge of the Central reclamation area.

The decision to go along with the so- called "government specifications" is not a sign of agreement but rather recognition of "the political reality," Designing Hong Kong Harbour District convenor Paul Zimmerman said.

In order to win over the two largest political parties _ the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Liberal Party _ Zimmerman said it was necessary to "include whatever the government wants because the parties have made the political decision to support the government." Only after lawmakers back the alternative vision can there be negotiation.

"We are not selling out, we are just trying to get in the door. And to do that, we have to first make sure to conform with the government," he said.

A previous alternative plan, called "Central Park," was launched by Civic Exchange in January but failed to win support.

"A lot of people said it needed more developments," said Civic Exchange chief executive officer Christine Loh Kung-wai. "But we think any of these plans is a better plan than the government's." Zimmerman said he has presented the alternative plan to the DAB, the Liberal Party and the Civic Party, as well as government officials. A meeting with the Democratic Party is in the works.

"Lawmakers were all very enthusiastic when they saw this. But they're under extreme pressure from the chief executive," he said.

With regard to the rest of the Central waterfront, the alternative plan recommends the area between the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre and the Central ferry piers be studded with low-density, one- to three-story commercial buildings.

The proposed "groundscraper" _ the long, two-story pedestrian deck connecting Statue Square and the Star Ferry _ will be cut from the plan after it received widespread criticism from the public, including members of the Harbour Business Forum.

Instead, a ground-level plaza, complete with greenery and public furniture, will be built in its place.

In addition, the proposed trunk road along the shoreline will be made into a tree-lined "ocean boulevard" with traffic lights and pedestrian crossings at street level.

Any traffic congestion issues should be resolved by immediately extending the tram and MTR lines to the northern shoreline, the alternative plan said.

"This is really a planning issue, but it has become a political issue because the government is rushing to get funding," Loh said. "If it were seen as planning, we think all the political parties would be happy to have the chance to see what the options really are."

hkskyline

May 22nd, 2006, 02:51 PM

Harbour activists unveilown plan for Tamar HQ
Groups call for 20-storey height limit and a zone for protests
4 May 2006
South China Morning Post

Harbour activists yesterday unveiled a counterproposal to the government's plan for building its headquarters at Tamar.

They propose that the future government headquarters should be no more than 20 storeys high and call for a "democracy square" in the middle of Tamar where protesters can hold demonstrations.

This plan, jointly presented by think-tank Civic Exchange and the Designing Hong Kong Harbour District, includes a proposal for breaking up four major pieces of commercial land along the Central waterfront into smaller plots for gardens between shops and offices.

"If the smaller government headquarters cannot accommodate all the civil servants they want to move to Tamar, the authorities can [accommodate them] at the current offices at Government Hill," said Designing Hong Kong Harbour District organiser Paul Zimmerman.

The government will conduct a review of development along the Central waterfront in July, but this will be limited to studying ways to reduce building density in commercial zones.

Civic Exchange chief executive Christine Loh Kung-wai said: "All the buildings are going to be low-rise. By making each plot smaller, there will be multiple ownership of land at the Central waterfront, instead of leaving land in the hands of the biggest developers."

The activists will present their proposal at a public forum on Sunday at Caritas Community Centre in Caine Road, Mid-Levels. They will incorporate views gathered at the forum and produce a model of the site to visualise the plan.

They also hope to present their plan to the Legislative Council before the public accounts subcommittee recommends funding approval to the government's Tamar development at the end of this month.

"This is a planning issue, but the government turns it into a political issue and asserts heavy pressure on the legislators to approve funding in a short period. Whatever happens to Central harbourfront is in the hands of the Legislative Council," said Ms Loh.

Meanwhile, the Civic Party said it would conduct a survey on Tamar through its newspaper, A45, published today.

The party said it would include a questionnaire in the newspaper, in which members of the public will be asked for their views on the government's Tamar plan and whether they want a comprehensive review of development of the Central waterfront.

The public can also express their views on whether Government Hill should be sold for commercial development.

Also, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong said it would launch its own proposals for the Kai Tak airport site.

DAB lawmaker Chan Kam-lam said his party still wanted the government to build its Kowloon headquarters at Kai Tak, through reclamation of the Kai Tak nullah.

raymond_tung88

May 22nd, 2006, 04:05 PM

Harbour activists unveilown plan for Tamar HQ
Groups call for 20-storey height limit and a zone for protests

LOL!!! Only in Hong Kong would they purposely put a "zone for protests". I can't believe Hong Kongers protest so much. They should be lucky as they have some of the world's highest standards of living...

Monkey

May 22nd, 2006, 04:14 PM

^ I think the right to protest is very important but it's ridiculous to demand a specific zone for it. Why not just protest in Statue Square in Central?

_00_deathscar

May 23rd, 2006, 02:43 PM

LOL!!! Only in Hong Kong would they purposely put a "zone for protests". I can't believe Hong Kongers protest so much. They should be lucky as they have some of the world's highest standards of living...

It stops 'city shutdown' to be fair...

hkskyline

May 23rd, 2006, 07:26 PM

Statistics for Tamar site challenged
Development density for new government HQ, and $2b shortfall on the construction cost are contested by lawmakers
12 May 2006
South China Morning Post

The development density of the Tamar project is higher than the government has revealed, legislators were told yesterday.

Lawmakers also found a $2 billion shortfall between the construction cost and the money the government is seeking, and demanded a precise breakdown on why $5.1 billion would be needed for the Tamar development.

Members of the planning, lands and works panel decided to hold another panel meeting unless officials provided satisfactory written answers. If the replies were accepted, the project would be submitted for discussion at the public works subcommittee meeting on May 29.

The legislature's Finance Committee will vote on the funding on June 23 after the subcommittee endorses the project. The panel's vice-chairman, Patrick Lau Sau-shing, said he had found that Tamar's plot ratio should be 7.3, instead of 5.7 announced by the government.

The discovery came as the administration released the gross floor area of the proposed government headquarters and the Legco building.

The government offices will comprise 124,680 square metres and the Legco buildings 36,230 square metres. The Tamar site area will cover 2.2 hectares. Mr Lau said the plot ratio should be 7.3 - calculated by dividing the gross floor area of the government offices and Legco buildings by the site area. He also questioned why there was a $2 billion shortfall, saying the figures did not add up.

He said with a total area of 201,910 square metres and a cost of $14,500 per square metre, the total cost should be around $3 billion, not $5.1 billion as suggested by the government.

The administration yesterday failed to explain the difference in the plot ratio and funding shortfall.

Mr Lau, a retired architecture professor, accused the government of misleading the public and the legislature.

Meanwhile, independent legislator Kwok Ka-ki continued to question the government on why it had to move 3,200 civil servants to Tamar. Mr Kwok said his research on the number of principal officials concluded there were only 386.

"Even if all the principal civil servants take their secretaries and clerks with them to the new headquarters, we don't need to move 3,200 people to Tamar," Mr Kwok said. The government said it would only move principal officials involved in policy making to the new headquarters.

Twenty-one organisations expressed their views on the Tamar project yesterday. The Construction Industry Employees General Union was the only one calling for quick implementation of the project.

hkskyline

May 26th, 2006, 10:18 PM

Will this be the new face of Central? Activists warn of the impact if prime government site is exploited to the full
20 May 2006
South China Morning Post

Three 70-storey towers providing 5.4 million sq ft of office space could be built on a podium at the site of the Central Government Offices if the land goes into private hands and is developed to its full potential, harbour activists warn.

John Bowden, chairman of Save Our Shorelines, said the city would either have a three-tower development on Lower Albert Road that would be taller than The Peak, or four 50-storey towers which would create a wall effect, altering air flow and blocking the views of Mid-Levels residents.

He described the group's estimate as conservative, since developers could easily boost density by increasing the plot ratio.

"The [Central Government Offices] site is currently covered to less than 10 per cent of its potential," Mr Bowden said, adding that the site had no height restriction, while ridge-line protection was non-binding. Ridge-line protection refers to the recommendation that views to the ridges and peaks be partly building-free.

Officials have so far refused to discuss the future of the site if the government moves its headquarters to Tamar. However, officials suggested last summer that selling the site would cover Tamar's development cost.

The harbour group believed a podium would likely be built in any office tower development because it would create retail rental space.

According to a government-commissioned report on the development potential of the offices' West Wing, released two months ago, there was retail potential if the site was used for commercial purposes.

The report also said it was possible for developers to increase the site's density and plot ratio.

"It is traditional for developers to seek to maximise the gross floor area and the plot ratio through the dedication of ground floor areas to public use and as a result, secure an increase in the gross floor area equivalent to five times the amount dedicated," the report said.

"We would anticipate that much of the podium deck at the Lower Albert Road level will be dedicated to public use, and indeed, on the basis of some very preliminary calculations, it may be possible to achieve an increase in the plot ratio/gross floor area to the maximum permitted, namely 18:1."

Mr Bowden said that relocating the government headquarters to Tamar "holds the potential for further damage to the environment if the land is sold for commercial redevelopment".

He also warned of increased traffic congestion and an impact on air quality if the site was built to the maximum potential.

raymond_tung88

May 27th, 2006, 04:20 AM

It stops 'city shutdown' to be fair...

That's true. Even if they didn't designate a "zone for protests", people would normally just congregate in large, open public areas. Therefore, the new waterfront in Central would be a likely choice. Not to mention that if the government headquarters is built in Tamar, its naturally going to attract large crowds for protests.

hkskyline

May 28th, 2006, 04:29 AM

Construction cost for Tamar development project reasonable
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Government Press Release

The Government dismisses today (May 24) as erroneous and misleading suggestions that the estimated unit construction cost for the Tamar development project is higher than that for the International Finance Centre (IFC) Two.

The comparison failed to take into account the fact that the development project covers not just construction of the Legislative Council Complex and the Central Government Complex, but also a 2-hectare open space, drainage and related works in the open space and two covered pedestrian footbridges. The latter items should not be counted into the unit construction cost. Besides, it should not be assumed that the contingency provision for the entire project would necessarily be spent or indeed spent on building works.

As explained in the paper for the Public Works Subcommittee, the estimated unit construction cost for the Tamar development project (around $11,600 per m2) is lower than the market comparator for Grade A office buildings (about $13,000 per m2). When quoting the market benchmark, the Government has drawn reference to the regular professional surveying updates published by Levitt & Bailey and Davis Langdon & Seah.

The Government has no basis to verify the figures quoted for the IFC Two development. In any event, given the wrong analysis on the Tamar development project, the Government cannot agree with the conclusions drawn.

Aboveday

May 28th, 2006, 01:29 PM

May 28, 2006

Central harbourfront to be vibrant, attractive

The future Central harbourfront will be vibrant, attractive and accessible, Director of Planning Bosco Fung says, adding it will become a world-class waterfront with quality public and private developments in a luxuriant landscape setting.

Speaking at a press briefing today, Mr Fung said the area's land use framework is holistic and balanced, reflecting the community's aspirations for providing extensive public open space along the harbour, while maintaining the competitive edge of the Central Business District.

The illustrative concept for the new Central harbourfront has three design emphases, namely creating vibrancy and diversity; creating enjoyable public spaces; and creating a green edge to the harbour and the district.

Hong Kong icon

"The new harbourfront will be attractive in having a green unifying edge endowed with quality public and private developments in a luxuriant landscape setting. It will be vibrant day and night with a mix of uses and diversity of functions, inviting different activities and residents and tourists alike to the harbourfront," he said.

"There will be good access with the provision of multi-modal transport and comprehensive pedestrian linkages at different levels to bring people to the harbour. The new Central harbourfront will become a symbol of Hong Kong, with a distinctive urban form in harmony with the ridgelines and the harbour setting."

Mr Fung said the 11-hectare waterfront promenade, which is bigger than the eight-hectare Hong Kong Park, will offer residents assorted recreation with open-air facilities such as outdoor forums, amphitheatres, green open space, harbourside walkways and undulating lawns.

Leisure and entertainment activities, outdoor media shows and performances can be organised. Ancillary facilities for resting and alfresco dining will also be available.

3 principal corridors

The urban design framework is structured upon a waterfront promenade across the water edge, intersecting with three principal corridors linking the city with the harbour. All of them will terminate in the new harbourfront with focal points including the new Star Ferry Pier, public piers, plazas, and other activity nodes.

"The nine-storey office-commercial building linking Statue Square to the new Star Ferry pier provides a low-rise garden deck and an at-grade landscape walkway. The development would be a new unique building with cascading design, and extensive setbacks to provide garden decks, terraces and roof gardens," Mr Fung said.

Mr Fung said the land use zonings and other planning parameters including height restrictions laid down in the Outline Zoning Plans have provided a framework for the future developments.

Innovative ideas welcome

"Within the broad development framework, and provided the permitted uses and development intensity as expressed in plot ratio or building height as laid down in the OZPs are not exceeded, we welcome innovative ideas and believe there are no lack of design options which will best realise our planning vision of creating a world-class harbourfront," he said.

A bilingual pamphlet explaining the Government's planning vision has been published and a 3-D model to provide visual images of the new harbourfront area will be displayed at City Hall's Hong Kong Planning & Exhibition Gallery from May 31.

The Planning Department will undertake an urban design study to further refine the existing urban design framework and to prepare planning-design briefs for the key sites on the Central harbourfront to guide future developments. The community will be fully engaged in the study process.

http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060528/html/060528p007jpg.jpg

http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060528/html/060528p009jpg.jpg

http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060528/html/060528p010jpg.jpg

hkskyline

May 29th, 2006, 01:34 AM

Push to win key Tamar vote
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Monday, May 29, 2006

The government has unveiled a HK$300,000, three-dimensional model of the Central waterfront, just a day before the Legislative Council is scheduled to discuss funding for the controversial Tamar development project.

"We can't change the framework of the outline zoning plan for the Central reclamation area, but we can change the design," Director of Planning Bosco Fung Chee-keung said. "We found that a lot of submissions from the public contained good ideas, so we're trying to include them."

He emphasized, however, that the model illustrated only one design option, not the final product.

The model shows the government offices complex and the Legislative Council complex housed in two block- shaped buildings at the back of the Tamar site.

The proposed Civic Square, the area designated for open space, is fused with a 60-meter-wide pedestrian deck linked to the waterfront by a four-lane trunk road. Officials said the nine-meter-tall pedestrian deck would still be considered a ground-level crossing as that particular section of the trunk road would be lower than other roads in Central.

The model also includes a number of previously unmentioned features along the waterfront, such as an "undulating lawn" and an outdoor amphitheater directly across from the Tamar site.

"There're some concessions, such as a greener harborfront, which were quite encouraging. But we still don't know the end result," said activist John Batten.

Designing Hong Kong Harbour District convenor Paul Zimmerman warned the public not to be deceived by the model's "camouflage," saying: "It looks like a lot of green, but if you look closely, you'll see they're oversized trees that will take 200 years to grow."

The unveiling put an end to the mystery surrounding the highly-publicized model.

Rumors emerged Friday that officials were "in a panic" to produce the model before today's Legislative Council meeting. A government spokeswoman confirmed Friday the model existed and would be unveiled Sunday.

On Saturday, however, a government information officer denied the claims, saying a model was out of the question as lawmakers had not yet approved funding.

But an anonymous tip-off to the press later in the day led reporters to the North Point government offices, where a delivery man was photographed carrying the model into the building. Officials then issued press invitations Sunday announcing the unveiling of the model.

Sources said illustrations of the model were sent to the various political parties earlier last week, but the Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong - rumored to have promised its vote for the project in return for closer ties with the chief executive - received them several weeks earlier.

Officials also made visits to the various parties Friday morning to solicit views on the illustrations and to ensure "no surprises" turned up at today's meeting, the sources said.

hkskyline

May 29th, 2006, 06:22 AM

hkth

May 29th, 2006, 09:27 AM

RTHK News:
Lawmakers approve Tamar project

http://www.rthk.org.hk/APSuppics/mfile_56_313107_2.jpg

Lawmakers approving funding for Tamar project

The government's controversial plan to build its new headquarters on the Tamar site has passed its first hurdle in the Legislative Council. Members of the Public Works sub-committee overwhelmingly endorsed funding for the five-billion-dollar project, which will go to Legco's Finance Committee next month for final approval. The vote was 16 to two. The Civic Party's Alan Leong was asked whether it would be a "people's project," as the government has claimed.

hkskyline

May 29th, 2006, 03:51 PM

Tamar should be a community project
29 May 2006
South China Morning Post

The plan to build a new government office complex on the harbourside Tamar site is very close to becoming reality. Funding for the project will almost certainly be approved by the Legislative Council's public works subcommittee today. If, as expected, the Finance Committee also gives it the green light next month, the $5.1 billion project will have cleared the final procedural hurdle.

This is, therefore, a time to reflect carefully on the use to which this prime site in the heart of our city is to be put and where it fits in with plans for the overall development of the harbour. It is important that we learn from past mistakes, which have made the harbourside inaccessible and ugly. Instead, we should create something of which Hong Kong can be proud.

The government officially unveiled its vision for the Central to Wan Chai waterfront, including Tamar, yesterday. It is good to see that the design includes plenty of green space and room for community facilities. There are lawns, a tree-lined promenade, a harbour walkway and space for al fresco dining. An amphitheatre and a performance stage are included, along with a dedicated area for arts and leisure. These are the sorts of facilities needed to give people greater access to the harbour.

But the government's plan, which it described as "a vibrant and green harbourfront", is no more than a concept. We do not know whether it will be implemented or how it would look if it were.

The blueprint, for example, tells us little about the Tamar project. The buildings are represented on the plan by ill-defined tower blocks. The development, which will include a new Legislative Council building as well as the government offices, is intended to be iconic. But much will depend on how it is designed.

A pretendering process is already under way with potential bidders putting forward their proposals. A podium for the site, under which roads would run, is a feature of the developers' proposals, but not apparent in the government model.

The government should ensure as much public input into the design of the project as possible. It is vital that people are given an opportunity to express their views on how it should look. The whole community should be able to feel it is involved. A design competition, perhaps open to local and international competitors, would be a good idea. It would open up the debate and allow more public participation.

The government should certainly avoid settling on preconceived plans for Tamar and then trying to impose them on the community. This was the approach taken with the West Kowloon Cultural District and it is one of the reasons why the project has now gone back to the drawing board.

When the Tamar development was put on hold because of the economic downturn in 2003, this newspaper pointed out that the move presented Hong Kong with a valuable opportunity to develop the site for the people. The government, we said, could choose to build its new offices elsewhere.

Such an approach is still possible. But it has become increasingly unlikely, given growing support in Legco for the government's scaled-back office complex plan. Last week, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen described Tamar as "a community project". He claimed that 70 per cent of Hong Kong people want the government offices built there.

His claims are not conclusive, in the absence of any convincing evidence to back them up. Polls conducted by the government, but not made public, are of little weight. Neither is the government's assessment of views expressed in public forums and media talk shows.

But Tamar should, indeed, be a community project. The site is there for everyone to enjoy. With or without government offices, the project must achieve the aim of giving the harbour back to the people. That means ensuring that the people have a big say in how this landmark development takes shape.

hkth

May 29th, 2006, 05:02 PM

From news.gov.hk:
Air study set for Central 'groundscraper' (http://news.gov.hk/en/category/environment/060529/html/060529en04002.htm)

hkth

May 29th, 2006, 05:29 PM

RTHK news:
Harbour activist calls for public input into Tamar project (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/elocal/rthk_newsframe.htm?20060529&56&313112)

hkskyline

May 30th, 2006, 04:18 AM

Hong Kong approves controversial new government headquarters

HONG KONG, May 29, 2006 (AFP) - Hong Kong lawmakers overwhelmingly endorsed Monday a controversial plan to build a new multi-billion dollar government headquarters on a prime harbourside site.

Members of public works sub-committee in the Legislative Council (LegCo) gave the greenlight to fund the 5.1-billion Hong Kong dollar (654-million US dollar) project with 16 votes for the plan and two opposed.

The issue will go to LegCo's finance committee next month for final approval.

Despite the approval, legislator Kwok Ka-ki criticised the project, saying taxpayers will see little benefit from the plan.

Fellow lawmaker Alan Leong said the government estimate for the construction cost is double what commercial enterprises are paying for buildings in the territory. He urged the government to promise not to request further funding.

"I call on the government to draw a good model and do a proper public consultation and an independent study," he said at the meeting.

The government has so far refused to elaborate on the project's specifics but has insisted the costs represent fair value in the current market.

Officials want to bring the southern Chinese territory's sprawling bureaucracy together into one complex on a large plot of land that has lain empty since the city reverted from British to Chinese rule in 1997.

The project has been watered down several times since the original idea was floated in 2003 following vocal opposition from planners, developers and legislators who want to preserve the tiny city's dwindling public spaces.

The proposal for the so-called Tamar Site has also been attacked by conservationists who want to convert the concrete-covered plot into a green public park.

The 4.2-hectare (10.4-acre) site, nestled in the heart of Hong Kong's high-rise downtown area, was the former British naval base and is the most expensive piece of empty land in the territory.

The new headquarters will include a complex for the legislative council and the government as well as a two-hectare open space.

hkskyline

May 30th, 2006, 06:58 AM

Tamar funding plan passes first hurdle
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Tuesday, May 30, 2006

The controversial Tamar project may have secured the overwhelming majority of votes at Monday's Legislative Council meeting, but not before lawmakers gave administration officials a two-hour tongue lashing for failing to promote Tamar as "the people's project."

As expected, the government's HK$5.1 billion funding proposal easily passed its first hurdle - the Finance Committee's public works subcommittee - by 16 votes to two. The Civic Party and independent lawmaker Albert Chan Wai-yip, who was absent, were the only opponents.

But lawmakers favoring the project were, surprisingly, reluctant to grant it full approval, insisting the government had failed to show how the new administrative headquarters was not the government's project, but the community's, as Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen insisted last week.

"The administration has been too cautious in terms of transparency and public consultation," Democratic Party chief Lee Wing-tat said.

"It won't hurt the administration to be more open in its attitude from now on. After all, as Donald Tsang has said, the project is not for himself."

Lee demanded that officials guarantee the public will be allowed access to the complex, suggesting the top floors be reserved as a public viewing gallery. Additionally, the public should be allowed to visit the chief executive's office by appointment, he said.

Legislators also demanded to know how the Tamar project would integrate into the surrounding areas in Central and Wan Chai, and whether public space along the waterfront would house diversified recreational activities.

The Liberal Party and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong went as far as to question the project's "sustainability" in terms of the comprehensive planning of the waterfront, a concern previously raised only by local green groups.

The two parties became incensed, however, when their inquiries were dismissed by subcommittee chairman Raymond Ho Chung-tai as falling outside the scope of the meeting because they did not directly relate to the Tamar site.

"The paper mentions a linkage between Tamar and the waterfront promenade, so why should these two be kept distinct?" questioned Liberal Party vice chairwoman Miriam Lau Kin-yee.

Co-vice chairwoman Selina Chow Liang Shuk-yee added: "We hope the administration won't be too miserly when it comes to the waterfront promenade - do you expect people to just sit on a bench and gaze? You need activities to draw people there."

Despite these concerns, Director of Administration Elizabeth Tse Man-yee maintained that the Tamar site would not be included in a review and public consultation on the Central harborfront, expected to begin in July.

"The project is already at a mature stage, while harborfront planning is not as mature," she explained, adding that the administration had already in recent months "broken the rules and made an exception" by listening to public views" on Tamar.

The unprecedented outcry at Monday's meeting satisfied concern groups, who said lawmakers were finally showing an interest in the planning elements, rather than the politics, of the project.

"The vote was quite expected, but what was surprising was how many political parties were asking questions we've been asking," said convenor of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District Paul Zimmerman, who in recent weeks has made presentations of his alternative vision of the waterfront to various political parties.

"The politics are over, so now we can work together on the design," Zimmerman said.

However, the Civic Party's Alan Leong Ka-kit, who along with fellow party member Mandy Tam Heung-man voted against the project, said the ballot results were the disappointing product of the government's "strong-armed politics" and that "sooner or later, the public will dawn to this fact."

He added: "From the looks of it, Tamar does not have even the slightest resemblance to a people's project."

The Finance Committee will give its final vote on the project on June 23.

hkskyline

June 3rd, 2006, 04:41 PM

Offensive to scuttle harbor activists
Carrie Chan
30 May 2006
Hong Kong Standard

The government will counter any attempts to derail its Tamar headquarters project in the month-long run-up to its final funding approval on June 23, following a heavily funded campaign made possible by a "mystery'' HK$1 million donation to opponents of the project.

Sunday's official announcement of the harborfront development blueprint failed to attract extensive newspaper coverage Monday.

"This tactical move to consolidate peoples' support for the Central waterfront with the Tamar relocation project was disrupted by critics and activists,'' a government source said.

"The government, furious over the intrusion of a Tamar activist disguised as a freelance journalist for an local English paper at the Planning Department press conference [unveiling the Tamar model] on Sunday, protested Monday to the daily about the incident. But this failed to interrupt the progress of the project and the battle is on our side. But we need to watch out for any destructive forces before it is put to a vote for final funding. A showdown with opposing politicians, activists and critics who have strong business ties is under way.

"Top level instructions were made to counter any erroneous and misleading criticism in the coming four weeks.''

Bolstered by its success on the passage of funding for Tamar Monday by the Legislative Council's public works sub- committee, the government moved to draw more lawmakers to its side.

"Those who continue to block the way are acting against people's views and that is why the pro-government and democratic parties support the project,'' the source said.

_00_deathscar

June 3rd, 2006, 05:26 PM

Bollocks.

There was a very good 'letter to the editor' letter in the SCMP either yesterday or today ... about ruining the harbour.

Short but sweet.

Siopao

June 4th, 2006, 03:48 AM

http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060528/html/060528p007jpg.jpg

http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060528/html/060528p009jpg.jpg

http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060528/html/060528p010jpg.jpg

It's sooo beautifull..... :eek2:

_00_deathscar

June 4th, 2006, 05:43 AM

Just a shame it probably won't look like that, and is only shrinking the harbour then?

nano2192

June 4th, 2006, 06:44 AM

Nice projects.Hong Kong needs some fresh air.

dannykylaw

June 4th, 2006, 01:05 PM

I think this project is good! Hope this project will start soon.

hkskyline

June 4th, 2006, 04:33 PM

PLA should leave Central, says lawmaker
Guaranteed military berth and road to Tamar barracks are missing from the government's new harbourfront model
4 June 2006
South China Morning Post

The People's Liberation Army should move its headquarters from the Central waterfront to make way for an accessible harbour promenade, a legislator has urged.

Democratic Party legislator Sin Chung-kai yesterday said the PLA had no strategic need for the Central site and called on the government to discuss moving the barracks, and compensating the army if necessary.

"If the PLA headquarters could be relocated, it would be beneficial for the harbourfront," Mr Sin said.

His comments follow last week's unveiling of a government model for the harbourfront that did not include a military berth guaranteed to the PLA under an agreement between China and Britain in 1994.

Also missing from the model is a road which in the zoning plan links the berth to the PLA's barracks at Tamar. In its place are a tree-lined promenade and harbour walkway.

The words "military berth" do appear in promotional literature on the model, but the model itself shows no structure. Yet both the model and zoning plan do detail ferry piers along the waterfront, including the commercial and leisure pier yet to be built.

"The berth is on the model, even though you can't see it. The roads are also there," said a spokeswoman for the Planning Department. "The entire promenade is straight and smooth. So long as there is a 150-metre-long straight promenade allowing PLA vessels to dock, it is alright. We have sufficient length at the Central promenade to let the PLA dock their ships."

However, a military expert, who asked not to be named, said PLA vessels would require a structure in order to berth. "Just a straight line is impossible," he said. The PLA did not need a berth in Central as its main operational base in Hong Kong was at Stonecutter's Island, this expert said.

Vincent Ng Wing-shun, a member of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee, said he would press the Planning Department to include the berth's design and the roads in the model. "I have been to City Hall to see the model. I can't see the berth. I'm not sure whether it is because the PLA has not given the berth and the road's specifications to the government."

An explanatory note in the zoning plan states: "When vehicular access is required between the PLA berth and the PLA Hong Kong garrison headquarters, the traffic flow on road P2 would be stopped by means of wig-wag lights and PLA access would be provided." The P2 is a six-lane highway running from the Airport Express station past the convention centre to join existing roads.

Mr Ng, who is also a vice-president of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, pointed out the model was not a perfect representation of what would be built.

"It is just the Planning Department's intention. It depends on the co-operation of various government departments. Unless they also embrace the vision of turning the waterfront into a world-class promenade, the features we see in the model may not become reality."

The 1994 Sino-British Defence Land Agreement states: "The Hong Kong government will leave free 150 metres of the eventual permanent waterfront in the plans for the Central and Wan Chai reclamation at a place close to the Prince of Wales Barracks [PLA barracks] for the construction of a military dock after 1997."

While the berth has been on the drawing board since day one, it has rated only passing mentions in promotional materials the government has produced.

The PLA did not respond to calls for comment.

spicytimothy

June 4th, 2006, 09:28 PM

i really hope HK will end up looking like this.. altho truth be told it prolly wouldn't b so green...

hkth

June 5th, 2006, 09:48 AM

LUNG Ying-tai, a famous writer from Taiwan, made a speech called Who's Tamar?-- What I see the principal part of the HK culture, which was taling about her view on the Tamar site. This speech was made on June 2 2006 in the University of Hong Kong. Ming Pao today made this speech into written text. It is worth for everyone to read if you can read Chinese, and I'll made some summery in English at the bottom. :|

誰的添馬艦——我看香港文化主體性

我知道「作客人要有禮貌」。我知道我「不是香港人，所以不懂香港」。我完全承認「你們台灣更糟糕」。所以，講這個題目還真的「我有壓力」，套一句「巴士阿叔」的真情告白。但是，我也相信香港人的開闊，容得了善意的直率。

■添馬艦有故事

「添馬艦」這個名詞的來源是什麼﹖我問了10個香港人，發現10個香港人都不知道。

於是做了些研究。添馬艦，HMS Tamar，是英國海軍一艘軍艦，建造在1863年──太平天國鬧得正兇、美國正在打南北戰爭的時候。是一艘3650公噸的三桅運兵船，1897年以後，留駐維多利亞港內，成為駐港海軍的主力艦。在1941年的香港保衛戰中，日軍入侵，英軍退守港島，港府下令炸毁港內所有船隻以免為日軍所用，添馬艦也被炸沉。在一個海軍戰俘的網頁上，我找到那個奉命炸沉添馬艦的士兵的日記﹕

十二月十一日，海軍忙碌不堪。所有船隻都開往九龍，接駁撤退的部隊……十九點正，上尉下指令要我駛往昂船洲接運傷者。昂船洲已經被連續轟炸了二十四個小時。我運了三個擔架傷者，還有一些勉強能走的傷兵。二十一點，奉命炸沈添馬艦……夜特別黑，一點光都沒有，發射魚雷風險很大……我發射的第一顆魚雷，沒擊中。

在同一頁上，還有一個短訊，作者的祖父當年是添馬艦的水兵。她問的是﹕「我的祖父一直在添馬艦上，可是最後卻死在里斯本丸的災難中。六十年了，有誰可以告訴我他在添馬艦的生活﹖」

戰爭結束後，港府打撈添馬艦，一部分撈上來的木板，據說就做了聖約翰座堂的大門。

沉沒水底的戰爭殘骸，竟然轉化為仰望天空的的宗教情操。

一旦知道了「添馬艦」有這樣滲透着血和淚的歷史以後，就很難對添馬艦保持漠然。

但是，為什麼大部分的香港人不知道這些歷史，彷彿不在乎自己的歷史呢﹖恐怕也不是天生的冷漠，而是因為在殖民教育中成長﹔殖民帶來物質成就和現代化，同時也剝奪被殖民者對於歷史的細微敏感和自尊自重。

■強勢政府，弱勢社會

今天的添馬艦，原來當然是海水，當年的軍艦添馬艦就停泊在這裏。填海之後，就是中環到金鐘海岸線核心區的一塊多出來的空地，以「添馬艦」為名，紀念香港悲壯的烽火歲月。在它「暫時無用」的幾年裏，添馬艦「意外地」成為香港的市民廣場﹕14,000個人在晴空下圍坐着吃盆菜﹔5000個人聚在一起泡茶﹔4000個人在星空下肩靠着肩一起看露天電影。這樣一塊「自由放任」的地，在講究精算的香港絕不可能長久。政府決定在這裏建總部。4.2公頃的地面上，2公頃要闢做「文娛廣場」，另一半要建4棟政府大樓，每一棟大約30到40層高。那到底是多大呢﹖總建築面積，相當交易廣場第一期和第二期總和。建築費用﹖52億。

在剛剛興起的添馬艦的辯論裏，讓一個旁觀者最覺不可思議的就是，這麼重大的、影響城市景觀和生態結構的工程案件，竟然可以如此輕易地「過關」。如果是在紐約，在倫敦，在柏林，在東京，甚至在香港人挺「瞧不起」的台北，曾蔭權所提出的「添馬計劃」有太多問題會讓人大喊「未解決」，要窮追猛打了﹕

譬如問題一，為什麼政府總部要搬遷﹖人均辦公空間是否真的「嚴重不足」﹖它的人均辦公空間「不足」是以什麼標準在衡量﹖跟其他城市的政府空間做過評比嗎﹖結果如何﹖跟民間的人均工作空間相比又如何﹖這些信息若是空白，它如何證明它的空間「不足」﹖

譬如問題二，假定數據證明空間確實「不足」，那麼高科技電訊溝通系統是否不能補足﹖當視訊、網絡如此發達而且一天比一天發達的時候，傳統的所謂「辦公空間」的需求是否應該有全新的定義﹖是否做過調查研究﹖是否充分舉證了科技亦無法補足空間需求﹖

譬如問題三，假定人均辦公空間的「不足」有了科學的證明，那麼究竟應該繼續租用私人商業空間，還是擴大原有政府設施，還是乾脆遷址新建，針對各種選項是否做過徹底的分析比較﹖3種選項的經濟效應、環境影響、永續發展的評估等等，是否可以攤開在陽光下供學界挑戰，請媒體監督，讓社會檢驗﹖

譬如問題四，假定前述分析比較的結果確實是遷址新建為優，那麼，哪一個地址最為適合﹖為什麼不是亟需建設的九龍東南﹖為什麼不是資源分配偏低需要關懷挹注的新界﹖為什麼不是使用率低得離奇的數碼港﹖為什麼不是廢棄已久的西環屠房﹖為什麼一定得是添馬艦﹖科學的理據和說服在哪裏﹖

譬如問題五，如果政府總部決定落在添馬艦，那麼九龍東南的規劃是什麼﹖那麼政府山古蹟群的未來是什麼﹖那麼新填海中環濱海長廊的具體規劃跟添馬艦之間的呼應關係是什麼﹖那麼西九龍又將如何﹖西環屠房要作何處理﹖

從政府已經披露的資訊來看，這些根本問題都沒有「一個蘿蔔一個坑」的答案，但是52億的款項，立法會幾乎沒有異議。各黨派，除了公民黨，很快就不說話了。少數民間團體，只能要求政府在廠商提出標書之後，把模型拿出來展覽。政府既不需要回答對根本問題的追究──因為反正也沒什麼人在追究﹔也不必做任何白紙黑字的承諾。答應展出招標事後的模型，還強調這是「破例」，而且人民不能給意見，政府已經給人民很大「面子」，做了「讓步」了。

香港政府真的強勢有為。民間，也真溫順得可以。

■挖土機你為什麼這麼急﹖

我無意說，政府強勢一定不好。很多政府可能對香港政府充滿羨慕﹕預算超高(香港政府預算是台北的8倍 )，主導性超強，社會力超弱。強勢政府尤其喜歡在工程上展現魄力，因為工程是最容易看得見的政績。

香港政府的「勵精圖治」企圖是很明顯的﹕政府剛剛公布了中環新海濱規劃方案，宣稱要「締造令人嚮往的消閒休憩用地及海港和商業中心」，要「發展成為象徵香港的世界級海濱」。天星碼頭旁將興建3組商廈建築群，包括28層高的商廈、18層高的「無敵海景酒店」，以及9層高但是長400多米的「摩地大廈」。除了這「世界級海濱」之外，西九龍40公頃的工程在規劃推動中﹔添馬艦將有政府大樓群等等，還不必談及大嶼山的開發以及各種跨界大橋的規劃。

政府強勢不一定不好，但是，當我們面對一個「勵精圖治」的政府時，當強勢政府像一個巨大的挖土機在橫衝直撞時，社會不能沒有一個深思的心靈和長遠宏觀的眼睛。我們可能必須在轟隆作響、天翻地覆的挖土機前，放上一朵脆弱、柔軟、美麗的小花。

脆弱、柔軟、美麗的小花提醒的是﹕

城市規劃是牽一髮動全身的。

以維多利亞港來說，中環濱海長廊的建築，勢必整個改變「香港的臉」──舉世聞名的浪漫維港景觀。想像你站到水中央，往維港四周緩緩做360度的觀覽，從西九、尖沙嘴、尖東、銅鑼灣、金鐘、中環、上環，一路流轉回到西九，維港的整體景觀，色彩、光影、山脊線與天際線的交錯，海港與建築風格之間的相輔相成諧調之美，是否有整體的預想呢﹖或者還是讓每一個海濱工程孤立的、局部的、偶然性依一時一刻之需而發展﹖

政府山的古蹟群，是香港唯一的一片完整殖民建築風格了，曾蔭權無論如何不願承諾保護，這些古蹟若是有一天剷除了，又變成以金錢計算平方呎的地產價值，香港人能夠忍受這樣對待自己的歷史嗎﹖如果保留了，添馬艦52億的大洞，你又如何填補﹖

如果這一切都還沒想好──那麼，挖土機啊，你究竟為什麼這麼急﹖

■香港跟誰比﹖

當主事者總是用「世界級」、「地標」、「香港精神」來描繪自己的「勵精圖治」的企圖時，我們能不能聽見一個小小的、安靜的聲音說，為什麼香港需要「地標」﹖「世界級」是跟誰比﹖比什麼﹖「香港精神」又是什麼﹖

西班牙的畢爾包怎麼能拿來跟香港比呢﹖畢爾包需要Frank Gehry的古根漢美術館作為地標，因為畢爾包是個極其普通的不起眼的小城，它可以用一個標新立異的特殊建築作為地標來突出自己。香港卻是一片璀璨，地標如雲，當地標被地標淹沒的時候，你還看得見地標嗎﹖地標還有意義嗎﹖

如果說，像畢爾包這種只有常民生活而缺特色建築的城市需要現代建築來作為地標，那麼地標簇擁的香港所需要的，反而是常民生活的沉澱，小街小巷老市場的珍愛呵護，讓「市井人文感」更醇厚更馥郁，而根本不是高大奇偉的所謂「地標」。

至於「世界級」，又是跟誰比呢﹖又是紐約倫敦巴黎柏林之流吧﹖問題一，為什麼要跟她們比﹖香港的基礎建設，比她們都好。香港的國際感，超過柏林。香港的治安，紐約不能比。香港的傳奇歷史，比倫敦還精彩。香港自己就是「世界級」，哪來的自卑感，老是要用「世界級」來給自己壯膽增威﹖

問題二，就是要比，香港要跟這些城市比「世界級」的，仍舊是硬體工程嗎﹖什麼時候，你終於要開始跟人家比「內涵」呢﹖為什麼不去和巴黎倫敦的古蹟、老街、舊磨坊、人文薈萃的河左岸、車庫廠房裏的藝術村去比「世界級」呢﹖

然後，代表「香港精神」的，仍舊是「無敵海景」的酒店﹖仍舊是已經滿城皆是的購物商廈﹖這種意涵的「香港精神」，又是「誰」下的定義呢﹖地產商﹖還是灣仔、西環、屯門、大埔、深水埗的人民﹖

■一個謙抑樸素的政府

添馬艦所在，是香港的核心，香港面向世界的舞台。燈光一亮起，香港的嫵媚姿態光彩動人。請問，任何東西都可以被擺到舞台上去嗎﹖

封建時代，貴族以金錢和絕對的權力打造宮殿，宮殿成為城市的中心。在一個現代社會裏，政府是服務市民的「公僕」──它是人民的庫房、機房、廚房、帳房、屠房，也就是一個service quarter，服務區。誰會把服務區放到舞台上面去﹖誰會把庫房機房帳房廚房屠房，放到一棟房子最重要的前廳去呢﹖

城市走多了的人，有一個指標﹕一個城市政府大樓如果富麗堂皇，而且建在城市的核心，那通常表示，這個城市是個政權獨大的體制。如果主權在民，公民力量強大，政府大樓通常建得謙抑樸素，緊守「公僕」服務的本分而不敢做權力的張揚。紐約的市政府、柏林的市政府、倫敦的市政府，我們知道在哪裏嗎﹖他們佔據城市的核心舞台嗎﹖

所以，嘿，把政府總部遷到西環屠房如何﹖屠房適合政府的「公僕」地位，而老舊的西環也非常需要社區振興，不是嗎﹖

中環最突兀的，是解放軍大樓。把軍隊擺在香港面向世界最燦亮的舞台中心，等於是把兵器倉庫放到客廳裏去了，你能想像巴黎把軍隊駐在羅浮宮旁嗎﹖從前英國人這樣做，是為了炫耀它的殖民權力──企圖之囂張，不言而喻﹔今天，還有這必要嗎﹖景觀上不倫不類暫且不說，它所透露的粗暴意涵，更是招引負面解讀。曾蔭權政府最該做的，是設法把解放軍從中環遷走，把海濱還給人民。這不去努力，卻反而更將政府大樓擺到添馬艦去，說是創造一個「市民精神地標」(iconic civic core )。

在很多其他城市，公民恐怕早已「磨刀霍霍」上街抗議了。在一個公民社會裏，代表一個城市的「精神」的，絕不可能是一個城市的政府大樓。它可能是歌劇院，譬如悉尼﹔可能是博物館，譬如巴黎﹔可能是藝術家出沒的村子，譬如紐約﹔可能是老街老巷老廟老樹，譬如京都﹔可能是一條滄桑斑駁的老橋，譬如布拉格。但是，什麼樣的城市，會把市政府──一種權力機構，或服務區，當作精神標誌﹖

中環的維港是全世界看見的香港面貌，那面貌，真的是風情萬種。香港希望讓世界看見的，難道是市政府大樓﹖

把政府大樓放在添馬艦，怎麼看，都讓人覺得有一種權力的不知謙抑，不知收斂。

■真正的「香港精神」

更符合「香港精神」的，恐怕反倒是一萬多個市民在晴空下圍坐吃盆菜，反倒是5000個人開心泡茶、聽音樂﹔反倒是4000個人在星空下肩靠着肩看露天電影，一起哭，一起笑。當世界看見的香港，不只是千篇一律的酒店和商廈，不只是冰冷淡漠的建築，如果世界還看得見香港的「人」──快樂的、悲傷的、泡茶的吃飯的、散步的追風箏的，憤怒示威的、激動落淚的，彼此打氣相互鼓勵的香港的常民生活，也就是一個有生活內涵、有人的性格的城市，那才真的是「世界級」的「香港精神」吧﹖

衡量社會的進步，錢，不是唯一的指標。一個4公頃的廣場，或許失去了以平方呎計算地產的金錢，可是一個面對全世界的正面的香港形象，能用港幣或美金來計算嗎﹖市民，因為在廣場「歌於斯，哭於斯」而凝聚出來的深遠文化認同和社群意識，能用一平方呎多少來計算嗎﹖

2004年11月9日，在同一個地點，我提出對西九龍的質疑。當時有這樣一段話﹕

在香港，經濟效益是所有決策的核心考量，開發是唯一的意識形態。「意識形態」的意思就是，它已經成為一種固執的信仰，人們不再去懷疑或追問它的存在邏輯。所造成的結果就是，你覺得香港很多元嗎﹖不，它極為單調，因為整個城市被一種單一的商業邏輯所壟斷。商廈和街道面貌就是一個最明顯的例子﹕不管是又一城還是太古廣場還是置地廣場，一樣的建築，一樣的商店，一樣的貨物，一樣的品味，一樣「歡迎光臨」的音調。走在光亮滑溜的廊道上，你看見物品看不見人，物品固然是一個品牌的重複再重複，售貨員也像生產線上的標準模。連咖啡館都只有標準面貌的連鎖店。

如果僅只在這些大商廈裏行走，你會得到一個印象﹕香港什麼都有，唯一沒有的是個性。

兩年過去了，西九龍前途未卜，中環海濱正準備大肆建築，添馬艦箭在弦上，政府山古蹟群處境堪危，香港的城市正在發生重大變化，可是，社會裏關心的人卻非常、非常少。兩個月前，我曾問一班大約50個大學生，他們是否知道添馬艦的事情，答覆知道的只有一兩個。

文化主體性，我想並非僅只是政治層面的六四靜坐和七一遊行，香港和北京的精神拔河。關心香港本地的永續發展，關心香港留給下一代什麼樣的香港，是更關鍵的文化主體性的意識呈現。但是，政黨的立場搖擺不定，非政府組織的力量零散薄弱，大學生，對社會議題彷彿完全視若無睹，漠不關心。而他畢業後一旦進入政府，成為官僚體系成員，卻開始強勢行政主導。

陳冠中有一篇文章，我覺得是香港人了解自己必讀、外地人了解香港人必讀的，叫做「我這一代香港人」。他是這麼描述現在四五十歲這一代，也就是社會主流的﹕

我們整個長期教育最終讓我們記住的就是那麼一種教育﹕沒什麼原則性的考慮，理想的包袱，歷史的壓力，不追求完美或眼界很大很宏偉很長遠的東西。這已經成為整個社會的一種思想心態﹕我們自以為擅隨機應變，什麼都能學能做，用最有效的方法，在最短的時間內過關交貨，以求哪怕不是最大也是最快的回報……不在公共領域集體爭權益，只做私下安排，也是本代人的特色……是的，我們愛錢。(註 )

「在最短的時間內過關交貨」的思維，或許可以造就眼前的效率成果，但是窒礙了宏觀的、長期的、永續的思考。「不在公共領域集體爭權益」的順民習慣，或許可以贏得個人的事業領先，但是犧牲了社會整體的進步。

我不懷疑曾蔭權的愛港之心，但是他的決策可能是錯的，龍應台的意見更可能是錯的，但那不是重點。重點是公民參與，是公民辯論，重點是香港人何時敢挑戰短視和功利主義，是香港人何時敢把香港的未來抓在自己手裏，而不是放任精英官僚和地產財團決定自己和下一代人的命運。

公民以香港為家，對香港負責，這，才是「文化主體性」，才是「香港精神」吧。

(2006年6月2日於香港大學的演講 )

文﹕龍應台香港大學訪問教授

作者電郵﹕ytlung@hku.hk

註﹕《我這一代香港人》，牛津大學出版社，香港，2005，第8、10、12頁

Brief summeries from Lung's speech:
--HK people know little about the Tamar site since the colonial times,as the British HK Gov't didn't want the people in HK knew this history.

--Lung questioned Tseng if it is necessary to relocate the Gov't HQ and where should it relocate if it is PROVEN to be necessary.

--Lung believed Strong Govermence has to be made in a long-term view.

--She also believed HK is already a world class city, where many of the cities in the world, such as New York and Berlin, cannot compared with. It is not that necessary to rebuild a landmark if just for the soild buildings.

--She also criticized the HKSAR Gov't is a arrogent Gov't and the Gov't HQ shouldn't be on the coastal area. Also, she also criticized the HKSAR Gov't doesn't have the courage to relocate the PLA barrack. A good Gov't should be humble.

--What Lung believes for the "HK Spirit" should be made by the public opinion from people in HK, not in terms of money.

HongKongDisneyland

June 5th, 2006, 03:10 PM

hkth

June 5th, 2006, 05:37 PM

Just look at taiwan....they have more problems than we do in Hong Kong!!!!

Her speech was.............. Nothing New.

latest rating for her speech....."BORING"

You can say Ms Lung's latest speech was nothing new and boring. BUT, she did point out something that most of the HK people WOULD OVERLOOKED! She really want HK people to voice out on this issue! :eek2:

HongKongDisneyland

June 5th, 2006, 06:25 PM

You can say Ms Lung's latest speech was nothing new and boring. BUT, she did point out something that most of the HK people WOULD OVERLOOKED! She really want HK people to voice out on this issue! :eek2:

And How u know HK People have overlooked??

and how to make all HK People (7 million ) to voice out? It is almost impossible that 7million people would totally be agreed on one thing.

referendum?

I don't think Tamar is a big issue. Things would not get done if people keep on dragging.

If you ask all HK people to voice out everytime there is a debate on issues, most likely the issues remain to be there.

We need to move on,...so next topic..

Pax Sinica

June 5th, 2006, 10:06 PM

HK people sure know how to complain now, just take a look at the eternal empty grassy land in western Kowloon and Kai Tak.

hkskyline

June 6th, 2006, 04:52 PM

Top cultural critic voices discontent over Tamar
Doug Crets
5 June 2006
Hong Kong Standard

A leading thinker on Chinese cultural heritage has added her voice to growing dissatisfaction with the chief executive's efforts to make the Tamar site a monument to government, by calling for the removal of the PLA headquarters in Central.

"Can you imagine the French putting the military right next to the Louvre," said Lung Ying-tai, Taiwan's first cultural minister, a day after a forum at Hong Kong University where she had broached the issue to an audience of academics, citizens and students. "Donald Tsang should try very hard to move the PLA away from the center of Hong Kong," Lung said in an interview.

Lung criticized the government for not carrying out deeper studies about how best to utilize Tamar and for not giving the public enough say in their preferences to designing the site, the last undeveloped waterfront site in the city.

"The government does not know what modesty means," Lung said, aware that her comments might be seen as impolite. But she said the issue calls for great public scrutiny.

Lung is not alien to bringing pressure to governments.

She was sharply critical of President Hu Jintao, for whom she wrote an open letter the day after news supplement Freezing Point, which appeared in the Beijing Youth Daily, was shut down for "reorganization" earlier this year.

That open letter at least partly led to the reopening of the supplement.

Freezing Point, a popular and critical four-page news supplement for the Beijing Youth Daily, was suspended in January by the Central Propaganda Department for publishing an article that government officials felt portrayed the Chinese Communist Party in bad light.

Editor Li Datong was sacked, but a series of open letters from dissidents, academics and even party members led to the reopening of the weekly magazine. Li now works in the news research department of the weekly.

Lung is known in intellectual circles for pursuing greater cultural understanding among the Chinese and for securing human rights in the mainland. She has called for Chinese culture to adopt universal values like respect for the environment, individualism and the development of civil society.

She has conducted a series of forums at Hong Kong University, where she spent 2004 and part of 2005 as a visiting lecturer. Lung began her tenure as chair professor of arts and humanities at Taiwan's National Tsing Hua University last year.

Lung said her purpose in holding lectures on civil society, arts and culture, as well as urban planning, is a way of encouraging Hong Kong people to speak out and have a more direct role in forming their civil society.

Hong Kong has a world image as a "shiny, polished" metropolis, she said. But she is concerned that what lies beneath the surface is "fragile, insecure and confused."

More attention to what happens at home in the Tamar development and the way the SAR treats its cultural history would make more Hong Kong people global citizens, said Lung, who also raised the specter of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen massacre.

She said it was a paradox Hong Kong people used freedom of expression to voice their views on some human rights issues, but seemingly were powerless to prevent abuses to their cultural inheritance. "If you have the right to say you shouldn't fire on your own people in Beijing, why would you have the right to destroy the cultural heritage at home?" she said.

hkth

June 7th, 2006, 06:25 PM

RTHK news:
Tamar foes plan mass protest 2006-06-07 HKT 18:21

Legislator Kwok Ka-ki (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/video/ram/mfile_315580_1.ram)

A coalition of harbor activists says it's planning mass protests against funding for the more than five-billion-dollar plan to move the government heaquarters to Tamar. The grouping of N-G-O's, environmental groups and legislators -- including the Civic Party -- says the project is a massive white elephant that needs to be stopped. One of the organizers, legislator Kwok Ka-ki, says they're trying to rally pressure for a three-month public consultation, even though the government already has a majority for the Finance Committee vote on the project later this month.

scorpion

June 7th, 2006, 08:43 PM

just kick the PLA out, and massage the plan to include that prime-waterfront too, yes??

why so many hang-ups? seems like it's all being done in retrofit these days in HK....

hkth

June 8th, 2006, 05:07 PM

From news.gov.hk:
Tamar site contamination claim rejected (http://news.gov.hk/en/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060608/html/060608en06002.htm)

raymond_tung88

June 8th, 2006, 05:11 PM

Just a question... will the area east of the Hong Kong Exhibition & Convention Centre be reclaimed as well? That includes the Causeway Bay shoreline...

hkskyline

June 8th, 2006, 05:21 PM

Just a question... will the area east of the Hong Kong Exhibition & Convention Centre be reclaimed as well? That includes the Causeway Bay shoreline...
They tried to do that to extend the convention centre, but the opposition won in a legal battle.

hkskyline

June 9th, 2006, 04:19 PM

Claims of deadly dioxin in Tamar site soil dismissed
9 June 2006
South China Morning Post

The government yesterday denied that soil at Tamar contained the highly toxic element dioxin, saying there was no evidence to substantiate the claim.

Environmentalist Wan Shek-luen revealed on Wednesday that a study of seabed sediment at Tamar conducted in 1994 found a high concentration of dioxin - 30 micrograms in every kilogram of sediment.

Reports of Mr Wan's findings have renewed calls for a rethink of the project by some lawmakers.

Mr Wan yesterday attributed the dioxin contamination to the site's previous role as a British military dockyard.

The Frontier legislator Emily Lau Wai-hing, who chairs the Legislative Council's Finance Committee, said: "The government shouldn't rush the project through, especially now there are suggestions that soil at Tamar is toxic."

She said the controversial development should be further discussed by relevant panels.

Independent legislator Kwok Ka-ki wrote to the planning, lands and works panel to demand an urgent meeting to discuss the issue.

A government spokesman said the administration had carried out a ground investigation for the Tamar project in 2003. Later, a separate environmental impact assessment for the Central reclamation and the Tamar site was conducted.

"Results of the assessment revealed a small amount of contaminant with traces of heavy metal, but these could be completely disposed of according to ordinary and established land-filling procedures," the spokesman said.

He said only incineration of waste containing certain types of plastics or similar materials with incomplete combustion would lead to chances of producing a large amount of dioxins.

Although Tamar Bay had previously been used for mooring, the present site occupied only a small corner of a maintenance depot.

"There is no reason to believe that such incineration has even taken place at Tamar," he said.

The Finance Committee will examine the $5.1 billion funding request to build a new government headquarters at Tamar on June 23. The government can expect a landslide victory, as the Democratic Party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Liberal Party and The Alliance have pledged to back the project.

Legislators opposing the project have urged the government to postpone the funding discussion for three months to allow the public to comment on the proposal.

raymond_tung88

June 9th, 2006, 06:47 PM

They tried to do that to extend the convention centre, but the opposition won in a legal battle.

So Causeway Bay is not going to be reclaimed? I would normally say this is good, but I figure if they're reclaiming Central, they should do the same for the rest of the shoreline so the waterfront promenade can go from Central to Causeway Bay. Its a shame but w/e...

Now, about that gap between the Central reclamation and the Convention Centre, plz tell me that's getting filled!

hkskyline

June 10th, 2006, 08:46 PM

Now, about that gap between the Central reclamation and the Convention Centre, plz tell me that's getting filled!
Legal battle in the way once again.

hkskyline

June 10th, 2006, 08:48 PM

Public wants a green, open harbour: banker
Government and business urged to listen to public
9 June 2006
South China Morning Post

The government and the business community should take account of public aspirations over Victoria Harbour when they plan developments along the waterfront, a top banker said yesterday.

Speaking at a prize-giving ceremony on a Victoria Harbour design competition, Vincent Cheng Hoi-chuen said: "How we plan the harbour today will have a long-lasting impact. The general public told us [of] their ideal harbour through their drawings and designs. They said they want more green and open space along the waterfront; they don't want it to be high-rises only.

"We hope their ideas can be a reference for the government and the business community."

Mr Cheng, the chairman of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp, is the spokesman for the Harbour Business Forum, a coalition of more than 120 corporate and business organisations. He said the forum hoped the waterfront would be accessible for the public.

"We believe the harbour should not be monopolised by skyscrapers. There shouldn't be buildings that will create a wall effect, affecting ventilation."

More than 600 entries were submitted for the forum's design competition.

The grand prize went to three Year Two students at the Institute of Vocational Education's campus in Kwun Tong for their multimedia production, called No Substitute. Wan Sin-ying, one of the winners explained: "We believe there is no substitute for Victoria Harbour."

Their story tells of three fish that happen to see a spectacular fireworks show at Victoria Harbour and decide to build another harbour underwater. After all the hassle, they realise it is impossible to produce a harbour that could rival Victoria Harbour.

The winning entries will be exhibited at Pacific Place until Monday. They will move to Sha Tin's New Town Plaza for display between June 22-26 and Ocean Terminal between June 29 and July 2.

hkskyline

June 10th, 2006, 08:49 PM

Bypass project hits roadblock of criticism
Jonathan Cheng
10 June 2006
Hong Kong Standard

Legislators looking at the construction of a new harborfront bypass have raised questions about the impartiality of a government-hired consultant, since it is required to both assess the need for a new bypass as well as to oversee its design and construction.

Kwok Ka-ki, the legislature's most outspoken critic of the government's harborfront and Central district plans, made much of what he described as a "conflict of interests" at Maunsell, the global engineering consulting firm the government has contracted to scrutinize its designs for the harborfront district.

"To avoid a conflict of interests, the consultant should refrain from bidding on the building of the bypass," Kwok said Friday after a special meeting of the Legislative Council's panel on planning, lands and works to discuss the proposed project.

He said consultancy fees were usually tied to the size of the projects they recommended, and had a financial interest in increasing the area of the reclamation. Besides, he added, Maunsell had little choice but to go along with the government's clear intentions for the district.

"Maunsell is receiving millions of dollars in contracts from the government, and they know what the government wants to do," Kwok said. "What would you do if you were in their shoes and you know the government wants to justify the reclamation? You have no choice."

The government described Kwok's claim as a "misunderstanding."

Wilson Pang Wai-shing, a senior engineer at the civil engineering department said two contracts were awarded by different departments seven years apart. "Coincidentally, they were awarded to the same consulting firm," he said. "Each agreement has its own scope. There are very detailed speficifications for them to follow. There won't be any conflict of interest."

Earlier, Ma Lee-tak, the project manager for Hong Kong Island in the Civil Engineering and Development Department, told legislators Friday that Maunsell had two government contracts _ one from the civil engineering department and one from the Highways Department.

It was unclear exactly what these contracts were, and Kwok asked for further documentation. But he lambasted the government for only seeking one opinion on the matter.

"If you want to keep reclamation to a minimum, you've obviously made a mistake hiring one consultant," Kwok told officials. "We are at the mercy of Maunsell."

Ma promised that when it came out with the results of its research, the government would then consult the public before pushing forward.

Harbor activists like Kwok have, in recent years, been fervent in their opposition to any development plan that hints of reclamation.

They were heartened by a 2004 decision in the Court of Final Appeal that, under the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, there must be an "overriding public need" before any land can be reclaimed in Victoria Harbour.

The bypass proposal will require 15 hectares of land to be reclaimed, which Kwok and other legislators called unacceptable. Government officials said everything was being done to avoid reclamation but that even Maunsell's least disruptive proposal _ a tunnel from Central to Wan Chai under the Convention and Exhibition Centre _ would require some reclamation.

"If there's a need for reclamation, Maunsell will have to provide the evidence to prove it," Ma said.

Kwok cried foul at that statement, arguing the government was obliged to reclaim "zero hectares" of land.

Throughout discussions on the bypass, Maunsell's analysis has tended to favor a tunnel option that would include the land reclamation.

Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat warned the government that it could face another judicial defeat if it attempted to proceed with the reclamation plans.

"If the administration really believes it has a strong legal foundation for this project, I suggest you seek a court ruling," Lee said.

Thomas Chow Tat-ming, deputy secretary for the environment, transport and works, agreed that the bypass would not cure all ills, and said the government had "a basket of options" to address the issue. But he described the bypass as the best solution to Hong Kong's traffic congestion.

Kwok and Civic Party legislator Alan Leong Ka-kit also tried to tease the government out on rumors that it will sell off prime real estate on Government Hill _ site of the government headquarters _ to property developers.

Officials rejected the insinuations.

Nothing, however, got Kwok quite as upset as the two contracts held by Maunsell. "How can the government come up with a contract to allow a consultancy to gain money for a project whose funding has not been approved?" Kwok said. "The government doesn't even have endorsement from Legco to build the bypass, and now says they've already given out the contract to build the bypass."

He said: "This is illegal."

hkth

June 11th, 2006, 09:10 AM

RTHK news:
Public urged to voice opposition to CGO HQ on Tamar site 2006-06-11 HKT 11:47

Harbour front activists are urging people to voice their opposition to a government proposal to build the five billion-dollar Central Government headquarters at Tamar. They also say the government has not conducted any study to see whether or not the site contains any toxic pollutants such as dioxins.

hkskyline

June 12th, 2006, 07:10 AM

Deep divisions surface on Tamar
New findings come two weeks before funding vote and challenge chief executive's 70pc support claim
12 June 2006
South China Morning Post

The community is deeply divided over the best use of land at the Tamar site, a survey commissioned by the South China Morning Post has found.

The findings come less than two weeks before the Legislative Council's Finance Committee is expected to approve the $5.1 billion proposal.

The survey found only 28 per cent of the public would want Tamar turned into a government complex if they were given a choice on the land use.

Support for a green park and cultural venues scored 26 and 28 per cent, respectively, according to the survey carried out by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong.

The findings in favour of a new government headquarters are short of the 70 per cent support claimed by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen.

Two weeks ago, Mr Tsang quoted unidentified sources saying the "community project" had won 70 per cent support.

He has said that 70 per cent support for any public project was already very high and therefore the government should push such projects ahead despite opposition.

With the opposition votes in the legislature on the Tamar project down to about 10, the controversial plan to relocate the headquarters from Lower Albert Road looks set to be passed by the Finance Committee on June 23.

If given a choice, the option of a government complex scored 28.1 per cent, against 26.4 per cent for a green park and 28 per cent for a venue for recreation and cultural events. Commercial uses received 12.2 per cent support, while 1.1 per cent saw no problem in leaving the site vacant.

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 per cent and a 95 per cent confidence level.

Pollster Robert Chung Ting-yiu said the findings were far from the 70 per cent support cited by the chief executive.

"Only one quarter of the respondents considered it ideal to build the new government headquarters in Tamar. However, out of practical consideration and possibly out of their respect for the government, about half of the population is prepared to endorse the proposal," he said.

The spokesman said the combined support of 54 per cent for a green park as well as a recreational and cultural events venue also confirmed that the government's intention to earmark half of the site for "open space" was a fitting response to community wishes.

"Taken together, the survey outcome is consistent with the government's internal assessment of public feedback," the spokesman said.

Civic Party legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah said the findings did not support Mr Tsang's claim of having 70 per cent support. The party remains opposed to funding.

He said the diversified views showed the public lacked sufficient information to decide on land use.

Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat said the party had no plan to withdraw its support in light of the findings.

He said a party survey asking whether people would support the Tamar project two months ago also showed that support and opposition stood at around 50 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. But the survey did not ask people to choose other options. "I think 50 per cent support is still acceptable."

hkskyline

June 12th, 2006, 07:11 AM

Parties will ensure soccer fever won't mar Tamar vote
12 June 2006
South China Morning Post

Major political parties will make sure the distraction of the World Cup will not stop their legislators from turning up to vote on funding for the Tamar project, despite the likelihood of overwhelming support for the proposal.

The $5.1 billion plan to relocate government headquarters to the Central waterfront site is almost certain to be endorsed by the Finance Committee on June 23 after it won a landslide victory of 16 to 2 votes in the public works subcommittee two weeks ago.

Of the 50 legislators contacted by the South China Morning Post, 39 members will vote in favour of the project, with 10 opposing it and one abstaining.

Funding for the project will be secured if a majority of those attending the meeting support the project.

But the government is concerned that the last four matches of the World Cup group stage on June 23 will distract the legislators. Some lawmakers said they had been asked if they would be out of town by officials.

Liberal Party chairman James Tien Pei-chun said his party would try to make sure all of its 10 legislators attended the meeting, while Tam Yiu-chung, vice-chairman of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said his party would do the same.

"Officials can rest assured because, really, the government will certainly have enough support to get the funding passed because all three major parties are supporting the government on Tamar," Mr Tam said.

Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat also reaffirmed his party's support for the proposal.

The nine Democratic Party legislators have said they are ready to support the project after the government said it would incorporate Government Hill into a Central heritage trail.

The three Federation of Trade Unions legislators and the five-member Alliance have also indicated they would vote for the multi-billion-dollar project.

Independent legislator Albert Cheng King-hon, who supports the proposal, said: "Tamar is already a reality. Just look at how many people are still opposing it in Legco. Just a handful."

Emily Lau Wai-hing, of The Frontier, who opposes the proposal but cannot vote because she is the chairwoman of the Finance Committee, said there was little she could do to delay the vote.

"In terms of tactics, there is little I can do because we are greatly outnumbered," she said.

The six members of the Civic Party have vowed to vote against the project, saying the administration should provide a detailed plan for the project before asking for the $5.1 billion in funding. The party also calls for more public discussions on the project.

Health services legislator Joseph Lee Kok-long said he was still undecided as he had yet to receive the government's updated environmental assessment of the project.

raymond_tung88

June 12th, 2006, 02:36 PM

Legal battle in the way once again.

As usual...

Wow... hopefully something changes so it can be done. It looks kind of incomplete leaving the gap as well as Causeway Bay not being reclaimed.

hkskyline

June 12th, 2006, 10:46 PM

Basis for Tamar claim not clear
70pc support cited by Donald Tsang arrived at by various channels, official says
13 June 2006
South China Morning Post

A senior official yesterday refused to be drawn on the basis for Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's claim that there was 70 per cent support for the Tamar project.

Speaking on a radio phone-in programme, Director of Administration Elizabeth Tse Man-yee said the figure was the sum of different opinions collected through various channels.

"Over the past few months, we have done internal analysis," she said. "We also paid attention to newspaper editorials, letters from the public, and people who made calls to radio phone-in programmes. We gathered and organised all this information.

"We have scientific grounds to do our analysis. We understand the public has different views about Tamar. We've also refined our project according to the feedback.

"We've reduced development density and maximised opportunities for public enjoyment of Victoria Harbour. We've responded to public worries."

Ms Tse's comment came a day after a poll of 1,033 people, commissioned by the South China Morning Post, found only 28.1 per cent wanted a government complex to be built at Tamar.

Ms Tse said the poll result reflected the government's findings, as 28 per cent indicated the site should be a venue for recreation and cultural events while 26.4 per cent wanted a green park.

"When we look at the reality, over half of the Tamar development project is for recreational land use," she said, referring to the government's plan that over half of the space at Tamar will be open.

In a phone-in programme on Commercial Radio, a caller surnamed Lau opposed the government proposal.

She said: "The Tamar site should be developed as a multi-purpose venue for cultural and exhibition events, parks or church.

"The lives of Hong Kong people are too dry. They need some place to purify themselves. I used to support the Democratic Party, but I'm disappointed with its decision this time," she said.

Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat said that, despite the Post's survey findings, the party's nine legislators would still vote in favour of the government plan on June 23 when it is tabled to the Legislative Council's Finance Committee for funding approval.

"We had raised five conditions and the government responded to four of them, so we feel we should support the proposal," he said.

"We are concerned with public opinions, but we won't change our stance just because one of our voters opposes it."

See the SCMP poll results online at: http://events.scmp.com/promotion/goodeating/HKUPOP.html

hkskyline

June 12th, 2006, 11:11 PM

HQ protesters want promise to preserve Government Hill
12 June 2006
South China Morning Post

A new frontline has emerged in the battle over the $5.1 billion Tamar project, with harbour activists demanding the government disclose its plans for Government Hill after it relocates its headquarters.

The Civic Party has pressed for the preservation of the Government Hill, home to the city's government since the early colonial days, as a heritage site. Party leader Audrey Eu Yuet-mee said yesterday: "Not only is Government Hill an important part of our past, but also it is almost the last remaining green belt in the central business district."

Government Hill refers to the tree-lined hillside along Lower Albert Road that includes the Central Government Offices, St John's Cathedral and the Court of Final Appeal.

Ms Eu said her party remained unconvinced by officials' promises that there were plans to include Government Hill in a heritage trail. "We don't need empty promises by officials, but something in black and white with legal effect," she said. Fellow party member Alan Leong Kah-kit added: "The government would then say there is no reason to keep the empty old buildings. Chances are high that the site would be cleared for towering office developments."

Ms Eu admitted the government's funding request for Tamar would likely be passed on June 23, as the project's opponents were in the minority in the legislature. But she remained defiant: "That might be the political reality. But that does not mean that we should give up fighting for the interests of the public."

The party is expected to launch a signature campaign today against what it calls a "white elephant development" at Tamar.

Former High Court judge Simon Li Fook-sean, a rare participant in public protests, yesterday showed up at a bus parade to demonstrate against the Tamar project. The parade's organisers - the Society for Protection of the Harbour and Action Group on Protection of the Harbour - are demanding more public consultation on the project.

Meanwhile, government architect Peter Yuen Ka-tat said the project would make Tamar a "people's place".

In a media release yesterday, Mr Yuen wrote how much he looked forward to seeing the project's completion. "Office workers in the vicinity will be able to come here by making use of the connecting footbridges ... friends will chat in harbourfront cafés while tourists will take photos with the harbour as the backdrop," Mr Yuen wrote.

hkth

June 14th, 2006, 09:28 AM

RTHK news:
Official dismisses Tamar pollution concerns 2006-06-14 HKT 15:12

The Secretary for the Environment, Sarah Liao (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/video/ram/mfile_317538_1.ram)

The Secretary for the Environment, Sarah Liao, has dismissed reports that the Tamar site is contaminated with dioxin saying there's no scientific basis for even suspecting its presence there. Some Legislative Councillors had expressed concern about the suspected presence of dioxins at the site. The Legislative Council's Finance Committee will next week vote on the government's plan to build its new headquarters at Tamar. Dr Liao said even though a government study had found some heavy metals on the ocean floor, this was not a concern. She told Candy Kan pollution levels at Tamar were comparable with other parts of the harbour.

hkth

June 16th, 2006, 05:32 PM

From news.gov.hk:
Tamar dioxin levels within int'l limits (http://news.gov.hk/en/category/environment/060616/html/060616en04006.htm)

hkth

June 17th, 2006, 05:29 PM

From news.gov.hk:
Public backs Tamar project: Michael Suen (http://news.gov.hk/en/category/infrastructureandlogistics/060617/html/060617en06002.htm)

hkskyline

June 18th, 2006, 06:27 AM

舊碼頭拆卸藍絲帶致敬
6月 18日星期日 05:10 更新

http://www.mingpaonews.com/20060618/_18gp$002.jpg

【明報專訊】受中環新填海工程影響，皇后碼頭和天星碼頭7月便會拆卸，而新天星碼頭將會遷到國際金融中心二期對開一帶。環保團體長春社昨日在兩個碼頭舉行人浪藍絲帶行動，讓港人向服務香港數十載的碼頭致敬。

長春社指出，兩個碼頭包含了不少港人的集體回億，皇后碼頭是港英殖民地總督就職和離任的地方，不少人會在那裏釣魚、出海、拍拖和拍攝結婚照。天星小輪於1966年加價5仙，引發暴動，今年剛好是事件的40周年。

（李紹昌攝）

hkth

June 18th, 2006, 05:21 PM

RTHK news:
Public urged to pressure lawmakers over Tamar development 2006-06-18 HKT 17:35

The Civic Party has called on the public to pressure lawmakers who represent them, NOT to hand the Government a blank cheque for the planned 5.2-billion dollar development of the Tamar site. Legco's finance committee will vote on the controversial project on Friday, and the Government appears to have overwhelming support from lawmakers. But, speaking during a public forum on the issue, Legislator Kwok Ka-Ki said the Government should not be gifted the funds without a full public consultation.

hkth

June 20th, 2006, 05:28 PM

RTHK news:
Many survey respondents don't believe CE's claims on support for Tamar project 2006-06-20 HKT 23:17

More than half the respondents of a new survey on the proposed Tamar development say they don't believe the Chief Executive's claim that 70-percent of people support the project. The study, conducted by the Action Group on Protection of the Harbour, also found that 80 percent of those polled don't believe the Government had consulted them, and a similar number wanted authorities to carry out an environmental impact assessment on the 5.2-billion dollar plan.

hkskyline

June 21st, 2006, 04:32 AM

Sprucing up offices would save billions
Leslie Kwoh
21 June 2006
Hong Kong Standard

Retrofitting existing government offices to the highest standard would cost about HK$250 million, or less than 5 percent of the proposed price tag to build a new government headquarters at Tamar, according to a study.

The study by architects and surveyors, commissioned by green group Save Our Shorelines, found that replacing building services such as air- conditioning and electrical infrastructure at the Lower Albert Road offices would cost about 80 percent less than constructing and fitting out a new building of the same size in the Central business district, based on costs for the Cheung Kong Center.

To meet the extra space requirements set by the government, SOS chairman John Bowden said he supported the Civic Party's proposal to redevelop Murray Building to a higher plot ratio. The offices at Lower Albert Road could then be reclad externally to match the new design, he added.

Also released Tuesday was a poll showing strong public support for more consultation before the Tamar development project proceeds.

According to the poll, taken by the Action Group on the Protection of the Harbor, about 70 percent of the survey's 770 respondents said they wanted no less than three months of consultation, and 52 percent said they disagreed with the chief executive's claim that the project enjoyed majority support.

``The results clearly demonstrate that Hong Kong people feel that have not had a chance to voice their views,'' group convenor and lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki said. ``And while people are not coming right out and accusing [Donald Tsang Kam-yuen] of lying, they also don't believe what he said.''

The study also found that 77 percent of respondents want the government to conduct an assessment to ensure there are no toxic chemicals at Tamar. The poll results come just days before the Finance Committee is expected to approve the HK$5.1 billion project.

But Kwok said the public will become disillusioned with the project.

``The government has damaged its own credibility and it's not for something that will benefit the public, like a hospital or library,'' he said. ``When people witness the massive building in front of them, they will wonder why their lawmakers voted for that.''

But political parties that supported the project will shirk the blame and point the finger at the government, he predicted.

hkth

June 21st, 2006, 06:07 PM

RTHK news:
Construction industry supports Tamar project 2006-06-21 HKT 18:57

President of Construction Industry Association, Conrad Wong (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/video/ram/mfile_319636_2.ram)

The Construction Industry Association has issued a statement expressing strong support for the building of a new government headquarters at the Tamar site. The group, which represents over 300 construction companies, says the project had already gone through extensive consultation and the project should go ahead. Its comments come ahead of Friday's vote in the Legislative Council for the 5.2 billion dollar project. The Association's President, Conrad Wong, says the government had already struck a balance.

hkskyline

June 23rd, 2006, 02:37 PM

Harbor 'going in no time'
Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, June 23, 2006

The government's insatiable appetite for reclamation will lead to the disappearance of Victoria Harbour "in no time," retired High Court judge Simon Li Fook- sean warned on the eve of the Legislative Council's final vote on the Tamar development project.

"I can predict that in due course, one will be able to walk from Hong Kong Island to Kowloon," Li said in an interview Wednesday, likening the city's penchant for turning water into real-estate to "spitting at your front door."

The 84-year-old Li surprised the public when he abruptly emerged from retirement last month to protest against the building of a new headquarters at Tamar, saying it was a project based purely on the government's "self-interest" and one he objected to even more strongly than the anti-sedition Article 23 legislation.

"There were many other projects I had feelings and doubts about, but this was the last straw," he said. "The government has always been not telling the truth."

Li said he remained silent when plans for the West Kowloon cultural district evolved from a green park into a developer's haven - complete with a museum, theater and retail shops.

He flinched when plans for the stretch of reclamation along the Central waterfront, originally earmarked for new roads to solve traffic congestion, gradually came to include a commercial belt as well. But Li said he could not keep quiet when he saw the government claim the last piece of prime land in Hong Kong for itself, at the public's expense.

Official justifications for the project so far, including the age of the present headquarters and the difficulty of installing new infrastructure, have only been "excuses to spend money," he said.

Recent "secret deals" alleged to have taken place between the government and two of the most powerful political parties only strengthened his conviction the administration was bypassing the public to secure funding.

His conviction prompted him to donate HK$500,000 to the cause, much of that sum spent in recent weeks on publishing open letters to the government in local newspapers.

Li's sudden appearance has prompted some to accuse him of a hidden political agenda, though he insists his decision to protest stems from a "sincere" love for the harbor.

He recalled that as a teenager in the 1930s, he would often visit the harborfront which at the time reached the present site of the Mandarin Oriental hotel.

Later, his harborview office at the Supreme Court building allowed him to gaze at the waters every day - a habit he was loathe to break when he retired in 1987. Since then, he has made sure he always has access to a harborview room.

But a lifetime of harbor-gazing led Li to the sad realization that, though Victoria Harbour has been reduced to half its size, the government's desire for reclamation remains undiminished.

"I have seen no change in the government's way of operation from the past to the present," he said. "It's all about making money the easy way, selling land instead of promoting Hong Kong's trade and industry."

Despite these observations, the passing of the final vote in the Legislative Council today will most likely mark the end of his last public appearance, he said. "If [the government] can do this despite my efforts to weaken them, I think it's a futile effort to do anything," he said, adding: "I'm too old to be interested in everything."

And, while he believes his efforts have helped pique public interest and highlight the pros and cons of the Tamar project, he admitted he also feels "a bit disappointed" in the public's lack of support. "They have not been given a fair chance, but at the same time, there's always a silent majority," he said.

As for the government, Li said he did not think it was "willfully malicious, but just so self-assured it won't listen to any suggestions."

To be fair though, he conceded, running the Hong Kong government is a strenuous job.

Looking back on his 1996 chief executive run against Tung Chee-hwa, Li said he now realizes he possessed neither the energy nor the "quality" to lead Hong Kong. But if he had succeeded, he would have made sure of at least one thing.

"There would be more harbor today, that's for certain," he said.

Aboveday

June 23rd, 2006, 04:17 PM

June 23, 2006

LegCo approves Tamar funds

The Legislative Council has approved the Government's $5.2 billion funding request for the Tamar development project. Director of Administration Elizabeth Tse says the Government will get the public involved in the tendering process.

Speaking at the LegCo Finance Committee meeting today, Miss Tse said subject to funding support by the Legislative Council, the Government will start the tendering process in the third quarter. When the tenders are returned, models of the designs will be presented for public viewing. The Government will hire a consultant to study ways to display the models and how to collect public and expert views on the designs.

Miss Tse said the Special Selection Board will consider construction costs and other technical issues when evaluating the tenders and will also take the public's views into account.

To ensure impartiality and openness, the Government will work closely with the Independent Commission Against Corruption and there will be an appropriate mechanism for lawmakers to monitor the process.

Contaminant disposal

Acting Director of Environmental Protection Dr Michael Chiu said only a small amount of contaminant with traces of heavy metal has been found at the Tamar site, which can be disposed of.

The Government has reserved $5 million for handling the contaminant. All Government tests have shown the dioxin level at the site and in Victoria Harbour as far below international standard.

On the future plan for the Government's offices in Central, Miss Tse said no final decision has yet been made, adding it adopts an open attitude on the issue and public requests for heritage conservation will be considered.

Noting the concerned site is now designated for community purposes, the director said if there is a need to change the land usage, the Government will need to consult the public and seek the Executive Council's and Town Planning Board's approval.

http://netalbum.netvigator.com/photos/2006/06/23/c3133321322661701151065299104.JPG

hkth

June 23rd, 2006, 05:23 PM

Series of news from RTHK:
Legislators approve funding request for Tamar 2006-06-23 HKT 17:14

http://www.rthk.org.hk/APSuppics/mfile_56_320232_3.jpg

The Director of Administration, Elizabeth Tse. Photo: Cecil Wong

The Director of Administration, Elizabeth Tse (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/video/ram/mfile_320232_2.ram)

The Legislative Council's finance committee has endorsed a government funding request for five-point-two billion dollars to build a new headquarters and a Legco complex at the Tamar site. The application was approved by a vote of 40 to 10. Construction will begin in the middle of next year and is scheduled for completion by late 2010. The Director of Administration, Elizabeth Tse, welcomed the outcome of the vote.

Many questions unanswered over Tamar project: Civic Party 2006-06-23 HKT 18:57

http://www.rthk.org.hk/APSuppics/mfile_56_320209_1.jpg
Harbour activist, Winston Chu, speaks during a protest against the building of a new government HQ at Tamar. Photo: Cecil Wong

http://www.rthk.org.hk/APSuppics/mfile_56_320257_1.jpg

Civic Party legislator Audrey Eu (third from left) protesting against the Tamar project with other lawmakers. Photo: Cecil Wong

Civic Party legislator, Audrey Eu (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/video/ram/mfile_320257_2.ram)

The Legislative Council's finance committee has endorsed a government funding request for five-point-two billion dollars to build a new headquarters and a Legco complex at the Tamar site. The application was approved by a vote of 40 to 10. Construction will begin in the middle of next year and is scheduled for completion by late 2010. Civic Party legislator Audrey Eu, who voted against the plan, said the Government had left many critical questions unanswered, such as how the 5.2 billion will be used; what the actual design of the new complex will be; and whether the existing Government headquarters will be sold off to developers. She added that, since the Government's already got funding approval, any public input from now on will be severely limited.

hkskyline

July 5th, 2006, 03:12 PM

LCQ4: New Central Harbourfront
Wednesday, July 5, 2006
Government Press Release

Following is a question by the Hon Audrey Eu and a reply by the Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands, Mr Michael Suen, in the Legislative Council today (July 5):

Question:

The design objectives and planning visions of the new Central Harbourfront announced by the Planning Department at the end of May this year include, among other things, the construction of a 400-metre long nine-storey shopping groundscraper, a 28-storey commercial building and an 18-storey hotel. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the total gross floor area of these buildings, and the floor area to be built on the land from the new reclamation;

(b) of the anticipated traffic volume to be generated upon the occupation of these buildings; and

(c) as the former Chief Executive promised at a Council meeting in October 2004 that any new reclaimed land would be used only to a limited extent for low-density commercial use, such as sight-seeing points and catering facilities, whether the authorities have assessed if the construction of these buildings is in line with that promise, if they have, of the assessment results; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

Madam President,

The Central Reclamation is comprised of three phases. Phase I involved the reclamation of about 20 hectares from Rumsey Street to Blake Pier to provide land for the extension of the Central Business District and the construction of the Airport Express and the Tung Chung Line. The works of this phase were completed in June 1998. Phase II started in 1994 and the works which involved the reclamation of about 5.3 hectares in the Tamar Basin were completed in September 1997. The Phase III works currently underway have been scaled down considerably from the original 32 hectares to about 18.73 hectares. This phase mainly provides land for the construction of essential transport infrastructural facilities, including the proposed Central-Wanchai Bypass, Road P2 network and an extended overrun tunnel for the Airport Railway, and the reprovisioning of the existing piers and the cooling water pumping stations. The works started in 2003 and are expected to be completed by late 2008.

The illustrative concept for the new Central Harbourfront announced by the Planning Department at the end of May this year is proposed on the basis of the planned land uses set out in the Central District Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) and the Central District (Extension) OZP, which covers the three commercial sites mentioned by the Hon Audrey EU. The proposed developments are as follows:

(1) the "Comprehensive Development Area" to the north of the Statue Square: The eastern part of the site can be developed into a garden deck not more than two storeys with shopping space inside. To the west will be office/commercial buildings of not more than nine storeys. The length of the garden deck and the office/commercial buildings will be about 270 metres and 350 metres respectively. The development is proposed to adopt a cascading design with massive greening to tie in with the waterfront setting.

(2) the "Comprehensive Development Area" adjoining Central Piers No. 4 to No. 6: A garden deck can be constructed to connect the piers. Proposed developments include two hotel/commercial blocks of 12 storeys and 14 storeys each on top of a 3-storey shopping deck﹔and

(3) the commercial site to the north of Two International Finance Centre: It is proposed that a 28-storey office building with a public transport interchange on the ground level be developed.

My reply to the three-part question is as follows:

(a) The above developments cover a total gross site area of about 7.5 hectares, with a total gross floor area of 306 550 square metres. The distribution is as follows:

(1) the "Comprehensive Development Area" to the north of the Statue Square: about 190 000 square metres;

(2) the "Comprehensive Development Area" adjoining Central Piers No. 4 to No. 6: about 55 740 square metres; and

(3) the commercial site to the north of Two International Finance Centre: about 60 810 square metres.

Of the sites mentioned above, only a portion, about 2.63 hectares, of the "Comprehensive Development Area" to the north of the Statue Square is situated within the area of the Central Reclamation Phase III (CR III) currently underway. The rest of the developments are all on existing land.

(b) According to the Transport Department, it is estimated that the total volume of traffic on the above developments during the morning and afternoon peak hours will be 1 609 and 1 823 passenger car units per hour respectively in 2016. The proposed Road P2 within the area and the Central-Wanchai Bypass will be able to cope with the traffic demands of the district.

(c) The land uses within the CR III is covered by the current Central District (Extension) OZP, which was approved in December 2002 after several rounds of public consultations in accordance with the statutory town planning procedures. When deliberating on a few rezoning applications in August 2005, the Town Planning Board reaffirmed that the scale and development parameters of the above commercial sites are appropriate and are also in line with the planning intention and development controls set out in the relevant OZP.

Just as what the former Chief Executive said, the newly reclaimed land would only be used, on a limited basis, for the provision of low-density commercial facilities. Only about 2.63 hectares of the land will be for low-density office/commercial development, with a plot ratio of only 3.63. Other than that, most of the reclaimed land, about 11.28 hectares in area, will be used for public open space or waterfront-related low density shopping or leisure uses. The focus of our planning is the provision of ample open space for the community and a diversity of functions so as to create a vibrant and green landscape for the new Central Harbourfront.

hkskyline

July 6th, 2006, 05:09 PM

More shops on reclamation than IFC
6 July 2006
South China Morning Post

Central will have an additional 3.3 million sq ft of commercial space under the plan for the reclaimed waterfront, more than a third bigger than Two IFC, legislators were told yesterday.

The controversial long, low-rise building - dubbed a "groundscraper" by the planners and a horizontal version of the soaring Two IFC by harbour activists - will contribute 2.05 million sq ft. Two other developments will contribute the remainder.

The Secretary of Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen Ming-yeung gave the floor-space figures in response to a question by Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee. Ms Eu described the planned development as "massive" and questioned the legality of building offices and shops on reclaimed land, as the Court of Final Appeal had ruled that reclamation could be made only if there was an overriding public need.

Colliers International research director Simon Lo Wing-fai described the additional floor space as "quite a lot". He said the supply of new offices in Central averaged 500,000 sq ft a year.

"But without telling us when they will be completed and the development phases, it is hard to predict their impact on the supply of commercial space in Central."

FM 2258

July 7th, 2006, 01:58 AM

^^

haha....shops on reclaimed land? They should be building super-tall skyscrapers.

cardboard

July 7th, 2006, 02:58 PM

^^

haha....shops on reclaimed land? They should be building super-tall skyscrapers.

yeah cool!
i think it will be good if the victoria harbour is reclaimed all the way, linking a land link with kowloon and hong kong island.

_00_deathscar

July 7th, 2006, 06:03 PM

Do we really need more shops?

Mr. Fusion

July 8th, 2006, 12:51 AM

raymond_tung88

July 8th, 2006, 01:01 AM

yeah cool!
i think it will be good if the victoria harbour is reclaimed all the way, linking a land link with kowloon and hong kong island.

Then how would ships pass through the harbour? IMO, that's the worst thing that could happen and by the looks of it, it might eventually happen.

IMO, they should never have done the first phase of Reclamation for Central (or in other words the piece of land where the IFC stands on). Its just caused more problems and is that what HK really needs right now?

They should just finish the West Kowloon Cultural Centre, finish reclamation in Central and Causeway Bay (to even out the shoreline), and finish the Kai Tak Airport development. After that, there should be ABSOLUTELY NO further reclamation ever in Victoria Harbour.

hkskyline

July 8th, 2006, 05:41 AM

This man knows what he's talking about. :yes:

I try hard not to be critical of any project here, but this Hong Kong government has butchered not only this, but the Kai Tak redevelopment and West Kowloon Cultural District. :no:

I'm curious as to how people in HK feel about these debacles, if anything. What do you think hkskyline?

:grouphug:
There is a lot of public scrutiny on these projects. After West Kowloon, there is a lot more consultation and the government is less hard-line and more open to public opinion, which is why this reclamation project has been on and off the tables and being debated over and over again in the legislature.

I don't buy the suggestion that the entire area ought to be parkland. There should be a purpose as to why people go there, and provide services for them. If I want to go downstairs to eat a lunch by the water in the park, I won't want to haul the food a few blocks to get there. Hence some retail and restaurants will enhance the reclamation, especially cafes.

Mr. Fusion

July 8th, 2006, 05:50 AM

There is a lot of public scrutiny on these projects. After West Kowloon, there is a lot more consultation and the government is less hard-line and more open to public opinion, which is why this reclamation project has been on and off the tables and being debated over and over again in the legislature.
What is it exactly that killed the WKCD plans? Something about a "single developer" being a bad thing, I didn't quite understand it fully from reading the articles you've posted, could you explain it in simpler terms? Thanks!

I don't buy the suggestion that the entire area ought to be parkland. There should be a purpose as to why people go there, and provide services for them. If I want to go downstairs to eat a lunch by the water in the park, I won't want to haul the food a few blocks to get there. Hence some retail and restaurants will enhance the reclamation, especially cafes.
I agree completely. I think it'd be best if there were just a 10-meter wide strip of parkland that ran along the coast of the harbour, and in certain spots along the way, the parkland can spread inwards. But yeah, the thought of dedicating that entire spot to grass and trees is absurd.

:grouphug:

hkskyline

July 8th, 2006, 05:56 AM

What is it exactly that killed the WKCD plans? Something about a "single developer" being a bad thing, I didn't quite understand it fully from reading the articles you've posted, could you explain it in simpler terms? Thanks!
The government tried to build the cultural facilities with a typical for-profit development model, having one developer build everything and add some commercial and residential buildings to make it profitable. Of course that didn't sit well since cultural industries tend to need government funding. However, the government wasn't willing to back down amidst more and more public scrutiny, and in the end had to cave in and now everything is back to the drawing board.

Mr. Fusion

July 8th, 2006, 06:11 AM

The government tried to build the cultural facilities with a typical for-profit development model, having one developer build everything and add some commercial and residential buildings to make it profitable. Of course that didn't sit well since cultural industries tend to need government funding. However, the government wasn't willing to back down amidst more and more public scrutiny, and in the end had to cave in and now everything is back to the drawing board.
I see... I don't know, personally I'd be willing to trade a little government "waste" on a developer to see something as spectacular as Foster's canopy and masterplanned structure built, but I guess the public thought differently. The govt. is going to eventually throw away money on something... I'd prefer it to be something globally unique and recognizable that everyone could enjoy. A little public input is great, but it appears they're having a little too much influence, which leads to indecision and mediocrity.

:grouphug:

hkskyline

July 8th, 2006, 06:41 AM

I see... I don't know, personally I'd be willing to trade a little government "waste" on a developer to see something as spectacular as Foster's canopy and masterplanned structure built, but I guess the public thought differently. The govt. is going to eventually throw away money on something... I'd prefer it to be something globally unique and recognizable that everyone could enjoy. A little public input is great, but it appears they're having a little too much influence, which leads to indecision and mediocrity.

:grouphug:
Unfortunately the government's flawed development model inadvertently dragged Foster's canopy to the grave. Hong Kongers were excited about the canopy, but when the for-profit model was scrutinized (especially the commercial and residential portions of this 'cultural' district), somehow the economic feasibility of the canopy got dragged into the picture, even though Hong Kongers were well aware it would cost a lot of money to build it. But then, the government is full of money; they could easily have afforded it.

The controversy was never about the canopy, but rather why was the cultural district turning into a residential and commercial development project, and why would those portions subsidize the cultural portion when museums and the district would need a continuous source of funding from the government.

Mr. Fusion

July 8th, 2006, 06:59 AM

hkskyline

July 9th, 2006, 02:05 AM

^^ Yes, I'll never quite understand how the canopy's feasability was dragged into the argument. Very disappointing. :(

Back on subject... Would it not make sense to finish smoothing out the Harbour's jagged edges with reclamation and then calling it quits? Not only would it help calm the waters that have gotten a bit choppy in some spots, but it would create a definitive line that says "do not reclaim beyond this point." It sounds like some of the reclamation projects were aimed at accomplishing this. I think the biggest problem is allowing these rectangular plots of land to be reclaimed, sticking out into the harbour. Because it makes it all too tempting to propose "if we just fill in the spots between..." You know what I mean?

:grouphug:
The original plan was to reclaim from Central all the way to Causeway Bay and have a continuous waterfront and a highway underneath with entry points in Central and Causeway Bay. The plan called for significant reclamation and that got a lot of negative response. As a result, some legal proceedings were taken to stop certain reclamations and political pressure scaled back others, hence the whole scheme is somewhat fragmented right now.

hkskyline

July 12th, 2006, 05:31 PM

Pressure mounts to move PLA barracks
12 July 2006
South China Morning Post

The government should enter discussions with the People's Liberation Army in an attempt to move the PLA barracks from the Central waterfront, harbour advisers said yesterday.

The suggestion was made at a regular meeting of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee, at which advisers were briefed on two harbour plans, one by the government and the other by four activists, including Society for Protection of the Harbour chairwoman Christine Loh Kung-wai and Paul Zimmerman.

Adviser Nicholas Brooke, a surveyor in private practice, told the meeting it was time the authorities took up the sensitive issue.

"I believe it is time we address the issue of the PLA headquarters," he said. "I know there are sensitivities involved in this issue, but the PLA should move out from Central so the land will be freed up when we're sorting out the future of the harbour front."

He described the location of the PLA barracks in Central as inappropriate, saying: "I hope the government will have some high-level discussions with the PLA on the issue."

A representative of the Hong Kong Institute of Planners, Chan Kim-on, echoed Mr Brooke's view.

"The PLA barracks should not be in Central, so the plot should be freed up for us to have integrated planning for the waterfront," he said.

Officials did not reply to the request for the barracks to be moved. Robin Ip Man-fai, deputy secretary for housing, planning and lands, ruled out major changes at the Central waterfront, stressing the existing zoning plan had undergone the required legal process.

The Planning Department will conduct a review of the planning of the Central waterfront, but it will only cover designs.

Central will have an additional 3.3 million sq ft of commercial space under the plan for the reclaimed waterfront.

It includes a long, low-rise structure dubbed by planners as a "groundscraper" and by activists as the horizontal version of Two IFC. There will be a high-rise office tower north of Two IFC and two high-rise hotel blocks near Central piers number 4, 5 and 6.

Andrew Thomson of the Business Environment Council said the groundscraper was against the principle of mixed land uses and diversified activities.

Alvin Kwok Ngai-kuen opposed the hotel plans. He cited an earlier survey the harbour committee had conducted on the development of the Central pier area, in which the public opposed high-rises there.

hkskyline

July 13th, 2006, 11:20 PM

Sydney-inspired bid for harbor loses vote
Leslie Kwoh and Albert Wong
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, July 14, 2006

Reminiscences of childhood ferry rides across a wide "fragrant harbor" and the promise of Sydney's commercially successful marriage of waterfront preservation, failed to convince lawmakers of the need for a harbor district authority to oversee the future of Hong Kong's most famous asset.

While all the lawmakers agreed that the harbor must be preserved, the consideration of a specific harbor authority, proposed in a nonbinding motion Thursday, was opposed by mostly functional constituency lawmakers.

The motion, moved by independent lawmaker and Action Group on the Protection of the Harbour convenor Kwok Ka-ki, comes at a time when the government's consecutive unveiling of new waterfront proposals on both sides of the harbor have concerned environmentalists eager to prevent further reclamation.

Retired High Court judge Simon Li Fook-sean warned last month "that in due course, one will be able to walk from Hong Kong Island to Kowloon."

Kwok called on the government Thursday to set up a statutory body that could make legally enforceable decisions on waterfront developments. The authority was planned to comprise a mix of elected and government-appointed members including academics, business leaders and green groups - but would still be subject to government oversight.

Kwok said he was inspired by the body that has been attributed with the success of Sydney's Darling Harbour, as well as the failings of Hong Kong's advisory Harbourfront Enhancement Committee, established two years ago.

Kwok said a harbor authority would help generate revenue for the government as well as preserve the harbor.

The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority is responsible for Sydney's most historically and culturally significant waterfront locations.

It is also one of the biggest landholders in Sydney, owning just over 400 hectares. Its A$1.1 billion (HK$6.45 billion) portfolio of commercial and noncommercial assets, that include the Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre and Sydney Entertainment Centre, generated revenue of A$122 million for the year ending June 30, 2004.

Opposition was led Thursday by Tommy Cheung Yu-yan of the pro- business Liberal Party, who introduced an amendment effectively canceling out Kwok's key proposals.

Instead of a harbor authority, Cheung submitted there should be "extensive consultation, so that the government can adequately respond to the aspirations of the public when planning developments."

Representing the architectural, surveying and planning sector, lawmaker Patrick Lau Sau-shing said he supported all of Kwok's principles, but believed the government was already adhering to them and respecting the law as laid down by both the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and the Court of Final Appeal. He voted against the motion.

Cheung Hok-ming of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong said the city's reputation as the "Pearl of the Orient" rested on the harbor, but said his party was unable to support the "controversial" proposal of a harbor authority.

But two DAB members - Chan Yuen-han and Choy So-yuk, chairwoman of the environmental affairs panel - chose to back Kwok.

Raymond Ho Chung-tai, of The Alliance, said much work still needed to be done to improve the congestion problem in Central.

"It will not be in the best interests of Hong Kong people to hold up all future developments over the harborfront," he said.

Responding to Kwok's motion, Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen Ming-yeung said in addition to meeting public demands for open space, Hong Kong must also maintain its role as an international finance center by keeping up with demand for commercial development.

He said a harbor authority "is not applicable everywhere" and that it was more important to complete the various harborfront developments at the moment.

With about two-thirds of legislators present, the largely pro-democratic geographical constituencies voted 10-2 in favor of Kwok's motion, but the functional constituencies voted it down, 5-13.

The Liberal Party's amendment was also rejected, but by only a narrow margin. The functional constituencies voted in favor 13-5, but the geographical constituencies voted against 8-9.

Kwok shot back in his closing statement: "I think the happiest party today is the government. You will succeed, but you will have to answer to the public later."

Tommy Cheung earlier said he felt there was no need for a harbor authority as introducing "too many authorities" would only "slow down the process."

Cheung's criticisms angered Kwok, who Tuesday accused the party of giving in to the government's behind-the- scenes lobbying and taking out the two most important parts of the motion.