Introduction
Source : Hopewell Holdings

http://www.hopewellholdings.com/images/hospitality/hhl_h_ship_street_b04.jpg

http://www.hopewellholdings.com/images/hospitality/hhl_h_ship_street_b05.jpg

Site Area : about 11,500 square metres
Scope : 2 hotel blocks with over 2000 guest rooms, retail, cinema, conference facilities
Anticipated Completion : 2009
Location : Kennedy Road in Wanchai, to the west of Hopewell Centre

A HK$4.5 billion hotel project in South Wanchai between Hopewell Centre and Ship Street with over 2,000 rooms and quality modern shopping, restaurant and other facilities, which will:

1. Bring urban renewal of the old and dilapidated area between Ship Street and the Hopewell Centre into a reality.

2. Inject vibrancy and dynamism to South Wanchai.

3. Provide the public with about 9,964 square meters of much needed open space, safe, amenable and conveniently accessible instead of inaccessible slopes and unsafe alley ways of no amenity value.

4. Bring preservation of the Nam Koo Terrace, a site of historical interest.

5. Widening of Kennedy Road in adjacent area improving traffic and pedestrian safety.

6. Create over 6,000 jobs in South Wanchai

Town planning intention of the Approved Outline Zoning Plan (S/H5/21) in force, traffic issues and environmental considerations have been fully taken into account in the planning and design of the Project.

The present scheme under application for town planning approval is an effort to improve on the 1994 approved 93-storey hotel scheme at the same site, which approval is still valid and subsisting.

TREE FELLING

As regards tree felling, the compensatory planting will involve 470 trees, with a high compensation rate of 124%. At present, trees on the slope have little amenity value. The proposed development would put the current useless slope to beneficial use, upgrade the environmental conditions and bring trees and open space, which will be enjoyable, under proper management and care, back to Wanchai residents.

TRAFFIC

The proposed Mega tower Hotel is manageable from a traffic management point of view and is sustainable in traffic terms as illustrated in the following charts. When compared to other roads and junctions in Wanchai district, the flow rate of Kennedy Road and capacity at junction between Kennedy Road and Queen's Road East are nearly at the bottom of the list. Without the proposed Mega Tower Hotel scheme, Kennedy Road will not be widened.

http://www.hopewellholdings.com/images/hospitality/hhl_h_ship_street_b03.jpg

http://www.hopewellholdings.com/images/hospitality/hhl_h_ship_street_b01.jpg

Hopewell in charm offensive over Mega Tower hotels
By Elaine Wu
5 February 2004
South China Morning Post

Developer changes tack in a bid to win over opponents of controversial plan Hopewell Holdings has revised its proposal for the Mega Tower hotels development in Wan Chai to increase the amount of space open to the public. And it is switching tactics from threats to persuasion in the hope of winning over opponents.

It is hoping a 32-page booklet about the plan to be distributed to residents will ease concerns about its $4 billion proposal.

Three months ago, Hopewell chairman Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung said students and residents might be prevented from using the lifts at his firm's nearby headquarters, apparently in response to the formation of a residents' group to oppose the plan.

The plans - envisaging towers 58 and 73 storeys high on a site bordered by Ship Street and Kennedy Road - were revised after Hopewell acquired two more properties on Ship Street. But a Hopewell spokeswoman said yesterday the basic building proposal remained substantially unchanged.

The revised proposal will be submitted to the Town Planning Board this month.

Before that, Sir Gordon will meet district councillors to explain the proposal, which involves two hotels with a total of 3,000 rooms and 200,000 sq ft of retail space on the 140,000 sq ft site.

Residents have formed the Kennedy Road Protection Group to oppose the project. They fear increased air pollution and traffic congestion from the development, and falling property prices.

"Many residents called and said that it would block the views," said Mary Ann King Pui-wai, a Wan Chai district councillor. "Unless Hopewell can explain and ease their worries, it will be hard for us (to accept).

"To be fair, I think Sir Gordon respects public opinion to a certain level. I think he is hoping to gain the approval of residents."

The booklet maps the history of the project, conceived 20 years ago, and includes artists' impressions of what the towers would look like from the Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront, Mid-Levels, The Peak and the former Kai Tak airport.

The lifts in the Hopewell Centre have been used as a shortcut to get from Kennedy Road to Queen's Road East since the 66-storey tower opened in 1980. Without access to the lifts, people would have to negotiate several steep flights of stairs.

In November, Sir Gordon said: "I'm seriously considering not allowing the students to use the lifts if their schools don't agree with the (hotel) project." He added he was "not threatening them".

The project has faced multiple hurdles over the years.

Mega Tower clears another hurdle
Planning board rules Hopewell's Wan Chai hotel project wouldn't unduly worsen traffic flow
Dennis Eng
11 December 2004
South China Morning Post

Hopewell Holdings has cleared a big hurdle in the two-decade struggle to build its $4.5 billion Mega Tower hotel. The Town Planning Board has accepted the development would not worsen road congestion to an unacceptable degree.

The breakthrough came after the developer, controlled by Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung, submitted further revisions to its plan for the Wan Chai development to the board yesterday.

They include a number of cosmetic changes that reduce the gross floor area to 164,091 square metres from 172,731 square metres while increasing the space available for public use by just over 12 per cent.

The board is deferring its decision on the application until February, pending which Hopewell will be allowed to make further changes to the twin-towers plan.

"As the public has not yet had a chance to comment on the improvements, we have decided to defer a decision to allow the proposal a due process of public consultation," a board spokeswoman said.

The deferral will also allow the board to gauge views presented at a Legislative Council case conference on the matter, to be held on December 20.

Under the latest plan, the height of the Mega Tower hotel will be reduced by two storeys to 58. The number of rooms would be cut by 120, to 2,160.

The changes would reduce the floor area devoted to guest rooms by 6 per cent and that devoted to other guest facilities by 6.6 per cent, but the area set aside for shops would not change. The effect is to reduce the plot ratio - the floor area as a multiple of the site area - of the development to 14.25, from 15.

"These are not very big changes and are just minimum revisions," Betty Ho Siu-fong, vice-chairwoman of the Conservancy Association, said. "We still think the open space is not very accessible to the public and that Hopewell should limit its development to land it owns."

The association earlier submitted a letter to the board arguing Hopewell should only develop on land it had bought. About half the 14,700 square metre site was acquired through a land exchange agreement with the government, while Hopewell's development area covers 11,515 square metres. The board is scheduled to debate this issue next month.

The association's letter also expressed concern over the number of trees that will have to be felled as part of the project. The board's spokeswoman revealed several of its members were also concerned about this issue.

Hopewell has already reduced the number trees to be felled to 379, from 500, and has pledged to replant more.

Hopewell to push Mega Tower Mark III
By Chloe Lai
20 April 2005
South China Morning Post

Hopewell Holdings executives are working on a third version of the controversial Mega Tower hotel project in Wan Chai, which will be much smaller than previous unpopular plans in an attempt to win Town Planning Board approval.

Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung, managing director of Hopewell, said the latest amendment would be ready in two or three weeks. It would also be sent to the Wan Chai District Council for consultation.

But Sir Gordon said he was going ahead with an appeal against the board's decision to reject his last version, involving two 58-storey tower blocks. If both plans failed, he again threatened to revive a 93-storey single-block tower plan, which was approved in 1994.

"I'm determined to get the hotel built, so I have a three-pronged approach."

He has until May 9 to file an appeal for his hotel project, which borders Ship Street and Kennedy Road in Wan Chai.

Under the latest amendment, Hopewell will build one hotel block, which will be substantially smaller. It will give the public more open space as an answer to residents' complaints that the huge towers would "wall in" their surroundings.

But the tycoon declined to disclose additional details about the latest amendment.

Hopewell has been buying land in Wan Chai for a hotel since the early 1980s. The Town Planning Board's approval for a 93-storey hotel in February 1994 is still valid.

Last year, Hopewell submitted a new application to the board, changing the plan to build two 60-storey tower blocks. Sir Gordon explained the change was to address concerns that the 93-storey building was too tall. But the board rejected the twin-tower amendment as being too big, saying it would create a walled effect and block views from Bowen Road.

It said the new plan was incompatible with neighbourhood characteristics, would cause traffic congestion, chop down too many trees and damage the city skyline.

Hopewell amended the plan by cutting two floors, but retained a 15-storey podium attached to each tower to house shops and other hotel facilities. This amendment was also rejected by the board.

Source : http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/wc_d/chinese/dchighlights.htm

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/hongkong/WCTMTDPCF_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/asiaglobe/hongkong/WCTMTDPCF_2.jpg

Looks great. It's not that tall, but who cares?

hk, is that 1st image the redo-of-the-redo-of-the-redo and current proposal??

:)

It appears to be fairly "lowrise"... at least in terms of HK heights ;) but it looks pleasing to the eyes.

Sky, Hopewell's been fighting a major battle with local preservationists/environ/urban planners to avoid a walled-effect up high on the mountain. its really to do with the peculiar shape of the plot of land they own there, and how much $$$$$ it cost for them to acquire it... which leads them to constructing something *massive* to somehow justify the price paid and profit from it~~

looks great! very greeeeeennn :cool:

These two buildings look awesome!

hk, is that 1st image the redo-of-the-redo-of-the-redo and current proposal??

:)
That first image should be the latest proposal following negotiations with the government that axed the original 90+ storey skyscraper. This image is prominently displayed on the Hopewell Holdings website.

I don't like the top.A plain top would fit better with the structure.

Though it's been "chopped" down a bit at height by the opposition of the nearby residents. It's anyway near the approval. Just a relief for Sir Gordon. He's been struggling for this project for almost 20 years. What a long "fight"!

Such a prime site in HK like this, doesnt deserve this height at all.

Nice environmental friendly building

I like the plants all the way up the facade.

wow!! a green skyscraper:cool:

nice but lowrise, and for HK....this will be good in Tokyo

WOW

too tall, too big, or too short... bah why not they just build it? It's damn beautiful, it looks great to me

Very massive, but i don't like it. I prefer (a) taller and slender tower(s).

it's funny they try to deceive the town planning board by putting planters on the external facade... haha. it can't really help it looking huge and blocking the views of the apartment blocks behind!

oh well... >.< will see if they'll finally get built!

Was this the old plan?

http://img2.ranchoweb.com/images/dmac1/c0015-1.jpg

^ Yes, that was the hideous old plan.

amaizing what is now on that place?? pictures please

Gorgeous! BIG and beautiful :D

Nice complex, a lot of green space makes the towers more exellent!

nice...........
hope that hopewell wont quit it like he did to bangkok...............

nice but lowrise, and for HK....this will be good in Tokyo

Only in HK are 58 and 73 story buildings considered "lowrise." Haha.

I prefer the old plan.

The new plan is more like a las vegas plan. HK is the city of slender towers, not massive hotels...

I prefer a totally new desing, one ultratall of somethin like that. Somehow i have the feeling the old design was made by the same people who made the Thunderbirds. ;)

Have to say that I'm against the towers being built! The reason is that one of the nicest aspects of Kennedy Rd is that it's always fairly quiet, which for the island is quite remarkable considering the next road down (Queens Rd East) is always busy. The other thing I like about Kennedy is that it's very green along pretty much it's whole length, even at the Bamboo Court / Queens RD end. It's the route I use when walkig to my apartment in the valley, and I love highrise architecture, but think Kennedy Rd should be left alone.

That old plan is really ugly! The new high-rises look very nice, but they would be more slender.

I think it looks great, of course its always someone that get their view obstructed, and therefore never accept any project there..Unless its a 3 floor hotel then :)

I like it. I think it would fit perfectly with HK's skyline :)

I hate the old plan... What a ugly design !!

The towers should be at least 20 floors higher, otherwise it's a nice design.

:applause:

Only in HK are 58 and 73 story buildings considered "lowrise." Haha.

haha , exactly :)

:cheers:

Wu steps down as head of CityU ruling council
Winnie Chong
6 June 2006
Hong Kong Standard

Property and infrastructure tycoon Gordon Wu Ying-sheung has resigned as chairman of City University's ruling council so as to avoid a conflict of interest.

Wu, chairman of Hopewell Holdings, resigned the voluntary post as well as an honorary professorship at the Chinese University's business administration department last Wednesday.

Wu said he wanted to avoid a conflict of interest as Hopewell appealed last May to have an urban renewal project, Mega Tower in Wan Chai, passed.

Hopewell has failed several times in the past two decades to gain approval for the project. The company appealed to the Town Planning Board in May last year and will attend the appeal hearing next January 18.

Since Hopewell was informed that the four-member appeal committee comprises a professor each from CityU and Chinese University, Wu said he decided to resign from both institutions.

"I have consulted legal advice that I do not need to quit since I am only responsible for policymaking for CityU, but not responsible for managing people," Wu said.

"But as I don't want it to seem there is a conflict of interest, and as I have been waiting for 622 days to reach the appeal date, I don't want to fail in my appeal because of any doubts of conflicts of interest," he said, adding that he is responsible to the shareholders of his Hopewell Group.

Wu became chairman of the CityU management board on January 1, 2004, and his term was scheduled to end this December 31.

Looking back on his time at CityU, Wu said that at first many members of the staff were hostile to his appointment as they believed rumors that he would integrate the university with the other universities, close schools and make sweeping reforms.

"At the beginning, I was not happy. But after a year, when they saw that my only ambition was to work for the university, they changed their perception of me," the outspoken tycoon said.

John Tse Wing-ling, chairman of the City University Staff Association, said he was disappointed to hear of Wu's resignation.

"He was really a hands-on chairman, and extremely devoted," Tse said.

CityU Students' Union external vice president Max Wan Wing-fai said he is concerned about the future direction of the university after Wu's resignation, while current university president Chang Hsin-kan's contract will end next May.

So there comes to the conclusion that this project will obviously be stated as "never built"??

how many meters?

I like its design though not so tall.

Mega Tower策劃20年
6 June 2006

【明報專訊】合和實業提出興建Mega Tower項目總投資額達45億元，包括兩幢60層高酒店，由合和主席胡應湘策劃逾20年，早於1980年開始收地，1985年向政府提出規劃申請，去年遭城市規劃委員會否決，致計劃觸礁。據估計，合和至今已花費6億元收地，但過程長達20年，利息損失難以估計。

已花6億收地 決定上訴

項目位於灣仔皇后大道東以南及船街以東，毗鄰合和中心。胡應湘去年親身披甲上陣，向城規會委員講解Mega Tower發展計劃，但計劃最後仍遭否決，主要原因有兩個﹕一是發展規模過大，會與周邊發展出現不協調﹔二是會對景觀構成負面影響，特別是龐大建築群會產生「牆壁效應」 （Wall effect） 。牆壁效應是指建築物太高或太闊，在市區形成一道牆，會影響景觀，並阻礙空氣流通，令污染物容易積聚。

胡應湘去年對城規會的決定表示失望，強調「計劃不單合情、合理、合法，而且還合民意」，決定上訴到城市規劃上訴委員會。

合和實業（００５４）：灣仔Ｍｅｇａ項目要待明年１月上訴結果
8 月 30日 星期三 06:06PM

《經濟通專訊》合和實業執行董事楊鑑賢理於業績記者會表示，灣仔 ＭｅｇａＴｏｗｅｒ　Ｈｏｔｅｌ 項目現仍在排期到２００７年１月上訴，集團有信心獲批，以最終可發展樓面１６﹒４１萬平方米。

I think this project can be built... It's not that disastrous to the skyline but actually it helps the Wanchai and Central skyline link together. Ventilation is a setback of course, but I guess the major concern was the adverse effect of eliminating the hill line and the lack of its integration with the neighbouring areas. Since Wanchai is having a massive facelift (especially on Queens Road East at streel level where Wanchai market was developed into a 3-skyscraper complex) and lots of redevelopment projects are going on now, I hope this project will finally get a green light from the authority. They had been harsh on Wu for 2 decades already...

Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

合和灣仔3項目擬長線收租
7月 19日

【明報專訊】由合和發展的灣仔Mega Tower雖仍有待城規審批，但旗下的三個區內項目，包括皇后大道東196至206號的寫字樓項目、皇后大道東208至224號住宅項目，以及樂活道12號的住宅項目，計劃全部作長線收租。

此外，以逾億元翻新的合和中心，現已完成八成工程，寫字樓平均呎租28至30元，出租率約98％，估計翻新後租金可望比去年同期上升逾三成。

合和實業助理董事王永霖表示，集團在港的物業發展以長線收租為策略，現時發展中的三個項目，包括皇后大道東196至206號的寫字樓項目，涉及約8萬方呎樓面，預計明年9月落成，最快今年底預租，平均呎租逾25元，地舖呎租約100元﹔皇后大道東208至224號的住宅項目，將建約10萬方呎樓面，提供220伙，面積300至500方呎，預計08年落成，計劃作服務式住宅，目標呎租40元﹔至於樂活道12號的住宅項目，最後兩伙以約1億元成功收購，計劃重建為提供82個面積1500至1700方呎的住宅單位項目，涉及11萬方呎樓面，預計3年半後落成，同樣計劃出租，目標呎租達40元。

合和中心已完成八成翻新

王永霖說，以逾億元翻新的合和中心，總樓面84萬方呎，現時已完成八成翻新工程，其中64萬方呎為寫字樓，20萬方呎為商舖，其中17樓商舖租金高達50元。他又稱，荃灣悅來坊出租率逾八成，平均呎租約25元﹔集團計劃斥4億元翻新九龍灣展貿中心，預計第1期於明年第3季完成工程。他又稱，集團再計劃吸納逾1200畝的廣州花都地皮。

??

^ The article details several other projects in Wan Chai managed by Hopewell in addition to the Mega Tower project. Hopewell Centre is also being renovated. The project is about 80% complete. Rents are expected to rise about 30% afterwards.

Mega Tower hearing postponed as Hopewell requests more time
Hong Kong Standard
Thursday, January 25, 2007

The appeal hearing for the long-running saga of Hopewell Holdings' (0054) HK$4 billion Mega Tower project has been delayed, as the company said it still needs time to prepare.
This latest hearing on the two- decade long fight was scheduled for last Thursday after the company, headed by Gordon Wu Ying-sheung, appealed to the Town Planning Board in May 2005. Another date for the hearing was not announced.

Surveyors said that during these hearings developers can bring forward consultants to attempt to convince the appeal board and a lot of preparation work is required.

Wu had previously vowed to fight to the end for the project, which is adjacent to the Hopewell headquarters building in Wan Chai, to go ahead.

"The company has requested to defer the appeal hearing for several months pending more complete information being prepared by the firm," Hopewell executive director Mok Chung-tat said Wednesday, without giving details.

Wu has been trying to get the green light for his proposed Mega Tower project since he first unveiled his plan in the early 1980s.

The plan has been submitted to the Town Planning Board for approval more than 10 times but it been rejected because of concerns about traffic congestion and the lack of open space.

Meanwhile, Hopewell and Shun Tak Holdings (0242) have raked in between HK$2 billion and HK$3 billion from the sale of apartments at Nova City in Macau's Taipa, Mok said.

The firms plan to launch the next batch of 12 residential units in the project for sale this week at an average price of about HK$2,540 per square foot.

Mok also confirmed Hopewell's interest in bidding in this month's tender of the Urban Renewal Authority's redevelopment project in Wan Chai.

The site on Queen's Road East offers 4,070 square feet, yielding a total gross floor area of 32,206 sqft, enough for about 50 residential units and a commercial area of 5,300 sqft.

Hopewell shares rose 1.42 percent Wednesday to close at HK$28.50.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

I cant see any pic : x x x x and more X

:(

I cant see any pic : x x x x and more X

:(

Fixed links.

Not very high but pretty cute

Fixed links.

Thankx mate :okay:

so..the design is very nice and the green zones are very goog integred with the design. :)

I love this project :master:

This is nice building, not tall, but very nice design.

I also like the design on this tower. Yes, as some people have mentioned, it is a bit blocky and large. But I do think that the design does a good job of visually breaking up its large shape and giving it a much more pleasant appearance. Not having been to Hong Kong yet, I can't say whether or not the design would really fit in with the neighborhood. I can say, however, that I think this design is a MAJOR improvement over the last one. The last one seemed a bit tacky and dated, like something that would have been built in the 1970s. This new style is a bit more fresh, and the step toward a more green design is also a welcome change. I give the project two thumbs up! :)

Yes, the new design looks far better than the original plan, but Hopewell's site is in a very crowded part of Wan Chai, and such a large-scale plan will cause a lot of problems if it is allowed to proceed. The problem isn't with redevelopment, but how to make it work in the community.

Kennedy Road Widening Scheme

http://www.hopewellholdings.com/images/hospitality/hhl_h_mega_b06.jpg

http://www.hopewellholdings.com/images/hospitality/hhl_h_mega_b07.jpg

http://www.hopewellholdings.com/images/hospitality/hhl_h_mega_b08.jpg

http://www.hopewellholdings.com/images/hospitality/hhl_h_mega_b09.jpg

silly question: but what exactly is the "hopewell Mega Tower"?

What's happened to this then?

The project is on hold as it has not gotten planning approval yet. The planning approval process is under way, and has been so for quite some time now. I don't expect any construction to start in the near future.

The original proposal looked like it had 2000 rooms and 88 floors. The new proposal shows that there are two wide towers that would require about 9000 rooms. But the rendering in the 1st post in this thread shows that the tower may have about 48-65 floors and look like a 4000-room hotel.

Is the Hopewell Mega Tower a good project or a bad one?

The original proposal looked like it had 2000 rooms and 88 floors. The new proposal shows that there are two wide towers that would require about 9000 rooms. But the rendering in the 1st post in this thread shows that the tower may have about 48-65 floors and look like a 4000-room hotel.

Is the Hopewell Mega Tower a good project or a bad one?

Wan Chai in general still has a huge stock of old buildings ripe for redevelopment, but this project was deemed too massive even before the conservation movement took hold, as the narrow roads in the area could not possibly take the additional traffic from such a huge project. Now it's going to get more difficult as the heritage movement grows and shuns attempts to destroy the existing urban fabric and the area's vibrant street markets.

This project may just be too big of a good thing and achieve a very bad outcome.

^^ modernisation needs to continue, I hope they dont strike it down entirely.

Modernization cannot come at the expense of local culture and traffic congestion. We know the proposed plan is not going to work. It's up to the developer to change rather than for the community to accept change for the worse.

Modernization cannot come at the expense of local culture and traffic congestion. We know the proposed plan is not going to work. It's up to the developer to change rather than for the community to accept change for the worse.

That's what the Brits said about the Roman invasion.

In fact, the redevelopment of Hong Kong Island's older areas are coming under increasing scrutiny since the streets can no longer be expanded yet the low- and mid-rises are giving way to mega-developments. Today's reality will not let rampant uncontrolled redevelopment take place, and changing social values now put quality of life high on the agenda. Usually the government will keep a quiet stance until the protests break out, but in this project the planners came out the starting line right away with a veto ... way back before this social shift began.

Mega Tower design 'may be changed'
Developer rethinking plans for 93-storey Wan Chai hotel
21 April 2008
South China Morning Post

The design of the 93-storey Mega Tower Hotel that Hopewell Holdings wants to build in Wan Chai could be changed in response to public concerns, the government has revealed.

The Development Bureau said it understood that Hopewell would revise the design of the controversial project. But even if it pressed ahead with the huge tower, the government could use land lease conditions to minimise the development's adverse effects on the landscape.

The assurances came in response to public concerns about the development that resurfaced after the Lands Department revealed early this month that it had begun negotiations with Hopewell on a land swap needed for the Mega Tower project.

They also come amid criticism of loopholes in the urban planning system that allow development plans to remain valid 14 years after being approved.

A Hopewell spokeswoman said the company was having a "friendly discussion" with the government, and would heed public concerns.

"Our goal is to start the project as soon as possible," she said.

Hopewell has submitted at least seven plans to the Town Planning Board for the project since 1985. The latest plan - for two 58-storey hotels, proposed in 2005 - was rejected by the board, and an appeal against that decision was adjourned. The only approved plan, a 1994 one comprising a 93-storey hotel tower and two public open areas, is still valid.

Under the 1994 plan, the project will encompass a 10,313-square-metre site in Kennedy Road. Half of the site is government land, for which Hopewell must swap some of its own.

Opponents of the development have urged the government to scupper it by stopping the land exchange.

"The Lands Department should not facilitate the development through land exchange. That is the only way to stop the project, which will block views and air flows," said Sally Ho-Emmerton, of the Kennedy Road Protection Group.

She also said it was unfair of the government to cap building heights on southern areas of Kennedy Road while leaving the Mega Tower site uncapped.

The Development Bureau said the government must respect an approved plan and should not arbitrarily withhold or delay the land-exchange application.

However, the tower's design could be revised, a spokesman said.

"The government understands that the developer may introduce some late changes to the 1994 approved scheme to address public sentiment that has emerged in recent years," the spokesman said, adding that such revisions must go through town planning procedures.

A Planning Department source said more stringent height and plot ratio restrictions would be added to the Wan Chai Outline Zoning Plan, but they would not apply to the approved project.

"We understand the public is worried about the project, but nothing can be done to stop an approved plan," the source said.

The bureau did not reveal any new design details for the Mega Tower but said a grade one historic building on Nam Koo Terrace would be refurbished by the developer.

If the 1994 plan went ahead, Hopewell would be asked to submit a landscape proposal as a lease condition to ensure adverse effects on the area were minimised, it said.

The Transport Department estimates the Mega Tower willincrease traffic on Kennedy Road by 25 per cent and on Queen's Road by 8 per cent.

I love the symmetry. There's just something about that. I'm a little concerned about the height, tho. In Hong Kong this can be too tiny to stand out. If they added some floors, it would be better. The light highrise on the left hand side has about 25 floors. I know the scale isn't right in that pic, but this could have more floors than most of us think. If the scale was all right, this would be quite a huge complex. It's interesting how the highrises are situated on top of the lower buliding.

well reading what hkskyline posted, sounds like the twin towers were shot down already, and they are back to the 1994 93-storey plan again. Hopefully it stays as tall!

This is great!

93 storeys would be great :cheers:

The 93-story building won't come back either for sure. There is a height restriction along northern Hong Kong Island as well. Given the building will sit on a slope, too, the final building probably won't be more than 60 stories to meet the maximum height requirement, and will only generate some acceptable amount of new traffic on Kennedy Road and Queen's Road East.

Normally I would say Hopewell can make an argument that their plans were approved back in 94, prior to the height restrictions...

of coz nowadays that's outta the qx.

Close the books on outdated building plans
22 April 2008
South China Morning Post

Hong Kong has more skyscrapers and high-rise buildings than any other city in the world. Of the almost 7,700 high-rises, 225 are at least 150 metres tall. In such circumstances, plans by Hopewell Holdings to construct the city's biggest hotel should barely raise an eyebrow.

That would certainly have been the case had work on the project in Wan Chai started after plans were approved by authorities in 1994. At the time, the skyscraper building boom was in full swing and there was little objection to the 93-storey edifice known as Mega Tower. But Hong Kong has since grown and evolved, and the community now values quality of life, aesthetics and the environment a lot more than it used to.

It is therefore surprising to learn that although Hopewell's building has never got off the ground, the 14-year-old approval is still valid. Because of a loophole in the regulations, the firm has only had to regularly submit revised plans to the Town Planning Board to keep it alive. Attempts to dramatically revamp the design have been rejected, the latest in 2005 when proposals for two 58-storey towers were rejected by the board amid strong public opposition.

Nearby residents have the same objections to a 93-storey hotel in their midst. They worry the building will increase traffic, obscure views, cut airflows and reduce the amount of greenery in the area. The Transport Department estimates that Mega Tower will increase traffic on narrow, winding, Kennedy Road by 25 per cent and on the often congested Queen's Road East by 8 per cent. That naturally means more noise and exhaust fumes and dust.

Circumstances have changed markedly in the 14 years since the proposal was approved. Construction projects that once got the green light with little or no public consultation are now closely scrutinised by the community. Development is no longer merely about putting up new buildings; it is also grounded in ensuring that there is an improvement in living standards and that a clean and green environment is maintained. We don't want a concrete jungle; we want a healthy place in which to live and raise our children.

This is being increasingly understood by the government - which is why the loophole that allows outdated projects to stay on the books must be closed. Society's values are constantly changing. What applied a decade ago is generally no longer acceptable.

The Buildings Department ensures the structural soundness of projects, a matter firmly dictated by laws and guidelines. But whether a building of a particular size should be constructed in a certain part of the city depends on numerous ever-changing factors, among them population density, road capacity and social demands. That the government is bound by law to abide by a decision taken in 1994 seems absurd in such circumstances.

Building applications should have deadlines. There has to be a reasonable time frame in which work has to start and finish. All government departments involved should properly co-ordinate efforts. But there has to be a degree of flexibility for developers as well, so that changing market conditions can be dealt with.

Legally, Hopewell could go ahead with its plan. The firm has tried to revise it, but successive rejections indicate it has not gone far enough in meeting community and government expectations. With those interests in mind, it would be wise to again rethink its proposal.

Authorities, too, have revising to do. It is in everyone's interests for an approved project to proceed smoothly. Setting a time frame would take the uncertainty out of Hong Kong's development.

So technically, Hopewell can go ahead and build that 93-story eyesore if they are sick of more revisions.

That's it. Because of all the controversy surrounding this project, I don't want the Hopewell Mega Tower Hotel built anymore. It needs to be cancelled.

Council opposes Mega Tower roadworks
21 May 2008
South China Morning Post

Wan Chai District Council has urged the government to reassess the affect on traffic of Hopewell Holdings' controversial planned Mega Tower.

The council yesterday passed a motion opposing planned roadworks designed to relieve predicted traffic pressure after completion of the 93-storey hotel tower until it has been given details of the work and its traffic concerns have been allayed.

Citing a traffic impact assessment report by Hopewell, Transport Department chief traffic engineer Cheng Hung-leung said an extra 500 small vehicles would pass along Kennedy Road each hour when the building was finished, bringing the total to 1,100 an hour.

But councillors challenged the neutrality of the developer's assessment.

"Why didn't the Transport Department conduct its own assessment? It would be much more credible. Will the department do it?" councillor Anna Tang King-yung asked.

But Mr Cheng defended Hopewell's report. "We made our proposals after seeing that Hopewell's estimates of pedestrian and vehicle flows were reasonable," he said.

The government last month proposed a series of traffic improvement works to the council's development, planning and transport committee based on the developer's report.

The proposals included widening a section of Kennedy Road near the entrance to the tower, roadwork on Spring Garden Lane and shortening green-light times on some traffic lights. But councillors were not convinced of their effectiveness.

Deputy Secretary for Development Susan Mak Lok Suet-ling said the proposed works were scheduled to be gazetted next month and the public could submit views within a 60-day consultation period.

More than 20 neighbourhood residents who attended yesterday's meeting displayed protest banners in the council meeting room and booed officials.

Kennedy Road Concern Group convenor Sally Ho Emmerton said she was very disappointed with the government's responses. The group has filed a complaint with the Legislative Council complaints division.

MegaTower case raises basic issues
11 June 2008
South China Morning Post

The role of the Town Planning Board, according to the Town Planning Ordinance, is "to promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the community by making provision for the systematic preparation and approval of plans for the layout of areas of Hong Kong as well as for the buildings suitable for erection therein, and for the preparation and approval of plans for areas within which permission is required for development".

The question now being asked, however, is whether the ordinance is capable of delivering this objective. If my understanding of the sequence of events linked to the proposed MegaTower Hotel on Kennedy Road is correct, the answer is "no".

In April 1985, the planning board accepted a development plan for a hotel with a gross floor area of 1,142,650 square feet on a 76,175 sq ft site on Kennedy Road which would lie alongside a public park of 63,290 sq ft. In June of the same year, the area was zoned OU(CRA), or comprehensive redevelopment area.

This zoning "is intended primarily to encourage the redevelopment of this area into commercial uses with the provision of public open space and other supporting facilities.

"The zoning is to facilitate appropriate planning control over the development mix, scale, design and layout of development, taking account of various environmental, traffic, infrastructure and other constraints," according to the notes attached to the outline zoning plan.

Because of the road layout and the sloping nature of the terrain, the development of the CRA not only affects its neighbours on Kennedy Road itself but also on Queens Road East and Wan Chai District, as the site is immediately adjacent to Hopewell Centre.

In January 1994, the planning board approved an application made under Section 16 of the planning ordinance to develop a 93-storey hotel (MegaTower Hotel) with 1.77 million sq ft of gross floor area on a 111,030 sq ft site flanked by a public park of only 21,850 sq ft. In addition to more than 2,000 hotels rooms, the development provided 440,000 sq ft of retail space and 270 car parks. The plot ratio was 15.91.

Following this Section 16 approval, the developer applied for general building plan approval, which it received in May 1994. Part of the approved development was to take place on government land the developer needed to acquire, but no acquisition took place.

In November 2003, however, the developer made a presentation to the Wan Chai District Council and it was noted in the minutes that the 1994 Section 16 approval had lapsed.

In April 2004, a fresh application under Section 16 was submitted to the planning board for a hotel comprising two blocks of 60 storeys each, but this was rejected on grounds the scale of the development was not compatible with the medium-density environment on Kennedy Road and concerns regarding the increased volume of traffic it would generate on Kennedy Road and Queens Road East.

The developer then submitted a Section 17 review application to the board in February 2005 and proposed that the plot ratio should be reduced to 14.5 and both blocks should be 58 storeys in height.

The board again rejected this proposal, saying the scale of development was excessive, there would be significant visual impact on the neighbourhood, there would be adverse traffic impact on Kennedy Road, and that the development would require excessive tree felling.

In the meantime, despite the controversial nature of the development, in June 2004, a member of the Planning Department agreed to a minor amendment to the 1994 scheme on the basis that the approval of the May 1994 plan constituted a commencement of development and subsequently the building plan was also amended to reflect the Section 16 amendment.

At the same time, the planning board rezoned several smaller sites along Queen's Road East as open space, as it was considered that this part of Wan Chai was becoming too densely developed.

In June 2005, the developer appealed the rejection of the Section 17 review but withdrew this appeal recently. It also announced an intention to proceed with the still extant 1994 approved scheme and to enter into negotiations to acquire the government-owned land required for its construction.

So much therefore for the history of the case, but it does raise several fundamental questions about the operation of our planning system in Hong Kong.

Specifically, one has to ask why officials within both the Planning and Buildings departments permit plans to be amended so as to reactivate earlier approvals.

What has changed since the board refused development in April 2004 on the grounds of excessive scale and traffic concerns?

Nothing, except that the sites zoned as open space and which made up part of the 1994 scheme have now been developed (despite still being zoned as open space), and traffic along both Kennedy Road and Queen's Road East has continued to worsen since 2004.

Other questions that beg for answers are: why is the government planning to sell to a private developer the government-owned land that is required to undertake this controversial scheme, when such scheme has failed to attract public support and contravenes the government's own guidelines? And what attention has been given to the problems of increased traffic?

No independent traffic assessment has been undertaken and this is the minimum that should be done before gazetting the proposed flyover/tunnel for vehicle access to and from Kennedy Road by MegaTower visitors or any sale of government land that would enable the hotel project to go forward.

Furthermore, the road works required to enable access to and from the development will be extremely disruptive.

The Wan Chai District Council has also urged government to reassess the effect of traffic generated by the MegaTower Hotel on the area. It adopted a motion on May 20 opposing planned Transport Department road works designed to relieve traffic pressures after completion of the hotel until it had received details of the work and its traffic concerns had been allayed.

The further loss of open space in the area will affect air quality and visual appeal and a preferable alternative to selling to a private developer to the detriment of the local community would be for the government to retain the site's existing state - undeveloped and zoned as a green belt.

The government claims that, because of the 1994 Section 16 approval, the Lands Department is now under an obligation to exchange land with the developer to facilitate the development of the project.

The basis for this claim is not clear. All Section 16 decisions include a section stating: "This approval by the board under Section 16 of Town Planning Ordinance should not be taken to indicate that any other government approval which may be needed in connection with the development will be given."

My understanding based on other cases with which I have been involved is that the planning board is an independent statutory body and cannot bind government departments.

Clearly, the history of the MegaTower project raises concern that the systems for approving development projects in Hong Kong do not function as intended.

How can schemes approved some 14 years ago be developed despite significant changes in the neighbourhood in the interim?

Why does the government claim that it is "obliged" to sell land to a developer in the face of public opposition? Where is the demonstration of the government's commitment not just to engage the community but, more particularly, to listen?

Are there no inherent dangers in a system that allows lapsed plans suddenly to become reactivated? If the open space has now been developed, albeit still zoned as open space, does this not change the parameters to such an extent that the original zoning objectives can no longer be fulfilled?

Nicholas Brooke is the chairman of Planning Alliance, an association formed at the end of last year comprising a group of professionals, the majority of whom are actively involved in planning issues in Hong Kong. He also runs his company, Professional Property Services Group.

IMO, we have a long way to go in learning and forming a good or a even more structured permitting process. MegaTower is really a wake up point to review the process, but unfortunately, we don't have enough expert at this point of time. sigh....

:cheers: I love the design.

i wonder if i can see the real thing before my funeral.

I don't think it's a common thing for so much time to pass between approval and shovelling. Part of the fault goes to the developers for sitting on things for so long while the rest of the world changed.

Mega Tower project controversy reflects badly on government
28 May 2008
South China Morning Post

Our government often talks about the need for an open, fair and transparent administration.

Yet what fundamental rights does the ordinary citizen have?

The recent revival of the Mega Tower Hotel project exposes the contradictions within the administration and shows the government's lack of consideration for the well-being of Kennedy Road and Wan Chai residents.

This is a government that continues to kowtow to large developers.

Without public consultation, the Lands Department resumed negotiations with Hopewell Holdings on the outdated Mega Tower Hotel project and presented a consultation to Wan Chai District Council.

Instead of including the many negative impacts of the project to Kennedy Road and Wan Chai at large, it focused on proposed road "improvement" work on Kennedy Road, comprising a large flyover and a tunnel.

These so-called improvements would be directly in front of two residential blocks on Kennedy Road, and part of a slope would be removed as would several trees on that slope.

In essence, what we are talking about is a large hotel, based on outdated plans, which will cause disruption to available open space and lead to worse traffic conditions.

What further outraged residents is that the government will sell public land to Hopewell Holdings so it can go ahead with its project and it will amount to 51 per cent of the final project area.

This raises concerns of favouritism on the part of the government. After several letters and phone calls made by residents, the chairman of Wan Chai District Council finally confirmed that he objected to the hotel proposal.

Yet, he would not give details of what action he would take, nor has he publicly notified Kennedy Road residents about his objection.

Given what has happened over this project, I leave it to readers to decide if they really think our administration is trying to be open, fair and transparent.

Rejecting Mega plan risky: minister Official defends land swaps for developers
19 July 2008
South China Morning Post

The government could face a legal challenge if it rejected the long-approved Mega Tower project in Wan Chai, the development minister said yesterday as she defended the practice of land swaps to allow development.

But Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor promised to make more transparent the process by which the government gives developers land they need to complete projects in return for sites the developers own elsewhere.

In the case of the 93-storey hotel project in Wan Chai, developer Hopewell Holdings owns less than half the 10,313-metre site of the proposed development, with the government holding the rest - most of it wooded slopes.

Doubts have been cast on the land exchange system, with critics saying it favours developers and harms the public interest.

Government officials were called to a special meeting of the Legislative Council's development panel yesterday to explain problems with the land exchanges that developers had requested for the Mega Tower project, a park on Ma Wan Island and the Cheung Kong Center in Central.

The Town Planning Board approved construction of the Mega Tower on a site between Queen's Road East and Kennedy Road in 1994.

Residents, supported by lawmakers and district councillors, say the plan is unacceptable because it would reduce air flow and worsen traffic congestion.

They have urged the government not to proceed with the land swap. But Mrs Lam told lawmakers yesterday: "We possibly face a big risk if we reverse the decision to approve the project. The government could be taken to court."

Still, she said the government had the final say over the land exchange and the developer had to produce updated projections of the project's impact on traffic that satisfy the district council and the Transport Department.

She admitted the land exchange policy could be more transparent.

She hopes the transparency with which the Development Bureau handled a land exchange involving the King Yin Lei mansion will become standard practice.

After the unidentified owner of the iconic 1930s Chinese-style mansion in Stubbs Road, Mid-Levels, hired contractors who stripped its roof and defaced many of its decorative features, the government agreed to swap the site for 4,705 square metres of public land in green belt nearby on which the owner intends to build five houses for sale.

Mrs Lam said the exchange policy should not be scrapped because it provided opportunities to develop abandoned farmland and old industrial areas and allowed the preservation of historic buildings such as King Yin Lei.

Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan suspected the policy had undermined Legco's monitoring of public spending.

In the case of the Ma Wan Park, the government did not have to seek Legco's approval for funding, he said.

"By deducting the construction cost from the land premium required for the land swap, the government actually paid Sun Hung Kai Properties a billion dollars to build a public park," he said.

Sun Hung Kai gained permission for its Park Island development on Ma Wan on condition it build the park. It should have been finished two years ago but is still incomplete.

Opinion : Minister must take back control of city from major developers
26 July 2008
South China Morning Post

The Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has now acknowledged for the first time that the government has the final decision on issuing any land exchange in the Mega Tower project, but then hints at a possible "risk" if the developer's demand for the land is refused ("Rejecting Mega plan risky: minister", July 19).

The facts are simple. The Mega Tower developer originally proposed a 5,880 square metre public park on land which it was purchasing in exchange for the right to locate its 106,000 square metre hotel on the already zoned open space on public land.

The Town Planning Board in 1985 accepted this proposal and honoured the arrangement by a rezoning to facilitate this public park and adjoining hotel concept.

Over many years, the developer confused the Town Planning Board and government planners by submitting numerous alternative schemes in an attempt to move the goalposts.

By 1994, the developer had reduced the area of the public park to 2,030 square metres and increased the size of the hotel to its present excessive dimensions of 164,000 square metres. Planning department staff failed to exercise planning controls and on two occasions acted outside statutory procedures.

It is up to Mrs Lam to protect the public interest by refusing a land exchange unless the developer reverts to the original public park and hotel size.

Mrs Lam should also arrange an independent inquiry to identify the loopholes which allowed the planning system to be exploited. And the system must be strengthened to avoid similar future abuse. This is essential as a means of protecting the public interest.

The minister has complete authority and justification for adopting this solution and should now be standing on the side of the public and not kowtowing to commercial or developer pressures.

It is time to stop the defects in the planning system from being used to monopolise public land reserved for open space or other community services. It is time for the minister to take back control of the city from major developers.

Fan Waugh Fu, Mid-Levels

Opinion : What do you think of the revised plan for the Mega Tower?
14 August 2008
South China Morning Post

What do you think of the revised plan for the Mega Tower?

The developer of the Mega Tower project in Wan Chai will unveil a new proposal soon after taking into consideration the public's views, with the aim of pushing forward with the project as soon as possible ("Hopewell to unveil new tower proposal", August 9).

The key issues concerning the Mega Tower project are the scale of development and the impact on local traffic it will bring about.

It aims to be the largest hotel in our city, with 2,000 rooms and 93 storeys. But an early indication from the developer is that the new plan will cut the density by about 5 per cent.

However, 5 per cent is nothing considering the mammoth scale of the project. Even before the revised plan is unveiled, we can be quite sure it will not gain public support. So why is the developer continuing with the project?

Wan Chai has been transformed quite dramatically, with many projects under way under the direction of the Urban Renewal Authority. It has managed to inject some new life into the district.

I can see that the Mega Tower proposal could help to connect some of the scattered areas and provide a better link from Kennedy Road to the heart of Wan Chai. However, the developer really does need to show it cares about the future of Wan Chai.

The mammoth scale of development it proposes and the intention to reduce density by a mere 5 per cent does not show a strong desire to make Wan Chai a better place. It seems more to do with creating an individual landmark for the district, like the Nina Tower for Tsuen Wan.

If that is its intention, then I think it is doomed to fail.

H.C. Bee, Kowloon Tong

93 storeys now?!

hey hkskyline, is there any way we can support this tower? like, are they gonna do another round of public consultation or something?

Wrong thread, but are those two rather tall towers in TST (New World Hotel + another one) going to go ahead? And when?

I don't know what to think about this project.

hey hkskyline, is there any way we can support this tower? like, are they gonna do another round of public consultation or something?
I don't even think it's going bac kto the public consultation phase again. This should just be about whether the government will let them build something they approved years ago which may not sit well in light of today's socio-economic environment.

I wonder if these approvals lapse if they don't get actioned upon after a certain period of time?

Opinion : Change of heart needed from officials over Mega Tower
20 August 2008
South China Morning Post

It seems to me that with the proposed Mega Tower in Wan Chai, the government is trying to bend the rules and failing to adhere to its own standards to meet the needs of a specific developer at the expense of other property owners in the area.

The long-established policy has been that commercial activities of the district are bordered on Queen's Road East. Any commercial development north of there must have access on to Queen's Road East. I know of no commercial building that does not have such access. Most people and cars access Hopewell Holdings' Hopewell Centre via this road, even if there is car-park access via Kennedy Road. A commercial development without access on to Queen's Road East is in violation of the government's own policy.

Hopewell Holdings' proposed Mega Tower has no access on to Queen's Road East. Any development north of the road and with no such access, is deemed non-commercial and mostly residential. Without that necessary access, Kennedy Road will have to bear the brunt of the traffic the new building generates. Given that it will be a hotel, there will be a particular kind of traffic specifically large buses. But Kennedy Road is not designed to handle this kind of traffic on a regular basis. It already has too many buses serving schools and Hong Kong Park. I am concerned that with so many oversized vehicles the problem that already exists will be exacerbated and I fear that if a bus crosses over into the oncoming traffic lane, we could see a head-on collision. There is at least one point on Kennedy Road where a large bus could not negotiate the bend without having to cross over and face oncoming traffic.

As the Mega Tower is such a massive building the government is trying to restrict other property owners' development plans in the Kennedy Road area, by limiting their development ratio and height, even though such projects would have far less impact than the Mega Tower when it comes to traffic, height and views.

Officials sometimes make incorrect rulings. However, there is still time to reverse the decisions that have been made over the Mega Tower.

A. Chow, Central

Hong Kong is really the city of life!!!

hong Kong has changes so much over the years - must be huge!

Hopewell heir true to his father's vision Thomas Wu driven by HK$7b Wan Chai tower plan
19 September 2008
South China Morning Post

Thomas Jefferson Wu is a young tycoon who dislikes following the crowd, whether at play or work. While other corporate warriors are taking a stroll around the golf course, the 36-year-old managing director of Hopewell Holdings prefers to play a rigorous game of ice hockey.

Mr Wu is such a fan of the sport that he founded an amateur ice hockey association to promote it in Hong Kong, where it never snows even in the coldest winter.

But it is not only on the playing field that he likes playing the maverick. In his role as one of the city's top property kings, he has focused on an area not always considered an upmarket location - Wan Chai.

He now has the tough job of negotiating with opponents in the district in a bid to push his plan to revamp an area his high-profile family has called home for many years.

"I was born in Wan Chai, lived in Wan Chai and studied in Wan Chai," Mr Wu said in an interview from his 64th floor office in the Hopewell Centre. "Wan Chai is the root of our family and our business.

"We want to contribute to redeveloping the district to show our commitment to the area."

When his father Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung co-founded the forerunner of Hopewell Holdings in 1963 it quickly expanded into one of the largest local developers in Hong Kong. Its success was sealed in 1980 with the completion of the 66-storey Hopewell Centre. The iconic building kept the title as the city's tallest building for 10 years.

The junior Wu joined Hopewell in 1999 after graduating with a Master of Business Administration degree from Stanford University and a Bachelor degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Princeton University, where his father studied.

He took the current post in July last year as his father stepped down as managing director but remained as chairman of the company - a move that many analysts saw as a step in preparing Thomas to take the helm from his father.

Since joining Hopewell, Mr Wu has been the mastermind behind the company's HK$600 million renovation of its property portfolio, including the Hopewell Centre, Hong Kong International Trade and Exhibition Centre in Kowloon Bay and Panda Place in Tsuen Wan.

All this appears to be only a warm-up for the young entrepreneur as he prepares for one his toughest challenges - a plan to spend an estimated HK$7 billion to build a 90-plus-floor Hopewell Centre II.

The project, formerly dubbed Mega Tower, has stirred controversy since his father floated the idea 20 years ago. Nearby residents worry the giant building, which will provide 2,000 hotel rooms, will create traffic and visibility problems.

Mr Wu said he was prepared to listen to residents' concerns but vowed not to abandon the project.

"If I gave up a multibillion-dollar project, it would send a negative message that Hopewell had given a vote of no confidence to Hong Kong."

The push to complete the contentious project marks the return of Hopewell as a serious player in the local property market after Sir Gordon's earlier shift to infrastructure and transport projects in China and Asia.

After announcing last week that the company had made a profit of HK$5.9 billion in the year to June, Mr Wu is now refocused on pushing the Hopewell Centre II project.

What are the priorities and focus of the company under your leadership?

I will continue to develop the core business of the company in property and infrastructure. I want to achieve higher profit for the benefit of shareholders, enhance the financial performance of the company and improve our service quality, competitiveness and market perceptions.

Your father remains chairman of Hopewell. How do you share duties with him and do you argue if you have different views?

My father as chairman sets the direction for the company while I and the management team execute and handle the daily operations. Whenever we have different opinions, we can always discuss and negotiate to find a solution.

What are the biggest lessons you learned from your father? Do you share similar management styles?

There are many lessons I learned from my father from how to do business to the way to develop my own personality. We went to the same university but we have different management styles. This is because society has changed a lot since the 1960s when my father founded Hopewell. We have to adjust our management style and business operations with time.

What is your next step in the Hong Kong property market?

Our next step is to develop Hopewell Centre II. We have been involved in town planning in Wan Chai for about 40 years. The first phase of the Wan Chai renovation scheme has begun in recent years and we want to extend the core business district [of the city] into Wan Chai.

Why don't you make your lives easier by bidding for new development sites rather than older sites?

We will consider buying new development sites, but we will be selective. If it is on Hong Kong Island, we will focus on Wan Chai only.

How much money do you plan to invest in Hopewell Centre II?

The project has been dragging on for 20 years. We estimate the price of the land premium and construction fees will total about HK$7 billion, more than double the HK$3 billion we estimated in 1994. We will use the 93-storey single block hotel scheme approved by the Town Planning Board in 1994 which is still valid.

The project has many critics who fear it will create traffic and visibility problems.

I think it is good to hear such criticism as it shows that people in Hong Kong have developed civic participation skills and voice their concerns. But I would like to insist that any discussion or negotiations must be fair and based on accurate information.

Should we just abandon the project because some people voice their opposition loudly?

From our consultancy survey and other comments, we know there are a lot of supporters of our plan and we should consider these comments.

But how do you address the major concerns of the public about the heavy traffic and blocking of views by the new project?

We have measures for the traffic and the government has professionally assessed our plan. Some people have said that all traffic would be concentrated in Kennedy Road - this is not true as we believe 30 per cent of the traffic from the project will use Queen's Road East.

Regarding visibility, we will design the hotel as a single block and one-third of the building will be below Kennedy Road.

What is your view of Hong Kong's office and retail market?

There is no doubt that Hong Kong's economy will be affected by the downturn in the global economy. The markets may not as rosy as the last few years. But I don't think there will be a big slump in the markets.

Mega Tower scheme could be scaled back
21 September 2008
South China Morning Post

Hopewell Holdings is considering scaling back the size of its controversial Mega Tower hotel project in Wan Chai.

Thomas Jefferson Wu, managing director of Hopewell Holdings, said its new flexible proposal was still in the works but would include the possibility of reducing the number of floors from the 93 storeys approved in 1994, or reducing the size of the project.

The company also unveiled plans yesterday to improve the road network to dispel criticism of the scheme.

The slope in front of Ruttonjee Hospital would be moved back, creating two more lanes on Queen's Road East. One would allow vehicles to turn left to the hospital and the other would allow traffic to turn right into Kennedy Road.

The footpath in Kennedy Road would be widened from 90cm to 2.75 metres. About HK$300 million to HK$400 million would be spent to develop a 5,575 square metre park - the size of Southorn Playground - near the hotel, which would be built between Queen's Road East and Kennedy Road.

A short film has been uploaded to the development's website, HopewellCentre2.com.

Concerns about traffic and the height of the proposed hotel have dogged the project since the idea was floated 20 years ago. Mr Wu said a taskforce would analyse public comments before the company came up with a proposal on the new hotel.

"We understand the concerns over traffic, that is why we put more effort on road-improvement work to dispel the concerns," he said.

He did not give a timetable but expected it would take five years to build the hotel. Hopewell obtained approval from the Town Planning Board to build it in 1994.

"We believe the project will bring benefits to Hong Kong, especially to the tourism industry. It will beautify the environment and create jobs," Mr Wu said, adding that it would increase the city's competitiveness.

He said the project had attracted support from Wan Chai residents, but the company would listen to concerns and try to address them.

"We will be willing to make some adjustments to the plans. We obtained approval after going through all the legal procedures.

"I do not think there will be lots of concessions. The height of the hotel is not the only concern."

Last month sources said the developer was poised to unveil a revised plan that reduced density by about 5 per cent and would cut the number of storeys by four or five floors.

Opponents of the project are concerned that the tall block will obstruct air flow and views from Mid-Levels and cause traffic congestion.

Green belt proposed for Mega Tower
Environmentalists target Wan Chai site
27 September 2008
South China Morning Post

A green group has proposed turning almost half the site for Hopewell Holdings' planned Mega Tower into a green belt in an effort to slash the size of the Wan Chai hotel development.

The Conservancy Association submitted an application to the Town Planning Board yesterday for the rezoning of government land that makes up more than 40 per cent of the site. It said such a move would not deprive Hopewell of its development rights because it could still develop the land it already owned.

"The hotel approved 14 years ago no longer satisfies current public aspirations," said the association's campaign manager, Peter Li Siu-man. "The greenery saved from the development can even function as the hotel's back garden."

In the rezoning application, the association said government slopes within the hotel site were densely covered by shrubs, mature trees and wall trees 50 to 80 years old, serving as a buffer in congested Wan Chai South. Saving the greenery at the site would also make the project more consistent with the character of old Wan Chai, in which old structures of east-meets-west style could still be traced.

Historic buildings such as Nam Koo Terrace and the Hung Shing Temple were also found in the neighbourhood, the association said, adding that the footpath connecting the wooded slope and heritage sites could be upgraded as a nature and culture walk.

Mr Li urged the government not to sell Hopewell the government land and return it to the community.

"There is no need to enlist the help of a developer to provide false public spaces that are neither open to the public nor spacious," the association said in the application.

The developer has launched a public relations campaign to repackage the controversial image of the Mega Tower, now renamed Hopewell Centre II. Newspaper advertisements also stressed the development would grow with the community and would contribute to it by offering more jobs and open space.

To press ahead with the 93-storey plan approved in 1994, Hopewell would have to acquire the government land within the site by paying a premium.

But the Development Bureau indicated earlier that the land acquisition could commence only after the community and the Transport Department gave a green light to the traffic improvement measures proposed by the developer. Last week, Hopewell's managing director, Thomas Jefferson Wu, announced measures to minimise the congestion created by additional traffic flow introduced by the hotel project. The HK$400 million package would include creating two more lanes on Queen's Road East and widening a pedestrian area on Kennedy Road.

A minimum of HK$80 million would also be spent to create a public park of 5,880 square metres.

A spokesman for Hopewell Holdings said the company respected different voices from the community and would respond to the association's application according to the town-planning procedures.

Opinion : What do you think of the green-belt plan for the Mega Tower site?
6 October 2008
South China Morning Post

What do you think of the green-belt plan for the Mega Tower site?

A basis for the introduction of the Kennedy Road/Ship Street comprehensive development area zoning in 1985 was to facilitate the relocation of the land zoned as public open space to the western boundary for a 5,880-square-metre public park at Ship Street.

In a series of planning applications the developer, Hopewell Holdings, has continually moved the goalposts and by 1994 the mega proposals had absorbed 3,850 square metres of the public park for private developer plot ratio (there will be a public park area of 2,030 square metres and private park of 3,850 square metres).

The developer has reneged on the original deal and our government weakly kowtows before major commercial interests, forgetting that it represents the public.

The Conservancy Association is to be commended, and supported, for making a Don Quixote-style effort to redress the balance for the community good.

Your report "Green belt proposed for Mega Tower", September 27, mentions the Hau Fung Lane granite walls and steps that provide the original passage from the heritage-listed Nam Koo Terrace to Hung Shing Temple.

These are worthy of protection as they provide one of the best remaining examples of a historic Hong Kong feature.

The impressive residence of Nam Koo Terrace is now increasingly falling into a state of disrepair, so perhaps a King Yin Lei scenario is developing?

Hopewell is the owner, so if its recent "Wan Chai and Hopewell are one" promotion is to be believed, surely it can afford to protect this beautiful property fully.

Christian Rogers, Mid-Levels

Environmentalists demanded their thing, and conservationists demanded their own thing... geez

How many historical heritage sites does Hong Kong need? It seems like every other development nowadays is running into problems with one or the other (if not both) of these groups.

I'm all for conservation and environmental awareness, but sensibly done, so HK doesn't become Denmark.

Mega Tower's biggest problem is not really on heritage conservation, but rather the effect of putting such a huge development in an already congested area. I think the other arguments are just noise and would not play a prominent role in the opposition. Yet at the same time, Hopewell's plan was approved, so technically they're allowed to carry on even though they waited so long.

I think an outcome that should arise is for the planners to put a time limit deadline on when construction should start and finish after approval has been granted. Approvals should lapse if no actions are taken after some time.

Opinion : Hopewell hotel approval saga warrants independent inquiry
10 October 2008
South China Morning Post

Kay Chan's letter ("Hopewell legal rights must be respected", October 1) appears to be confused on the background of this [Mega Tower] project.

Every experienced developer is aware, or should be aware, that persistently attempting to exploit any bureaucratic system is like holding a kangaroo by the tail, eventually it will turn round and kick you where it hurts and leave you gasping for breath.

The high-pitched squeaky voices from the Hopewell camp now complaining about unfair treatment from the public and government are an indication that our bureaucratic kangaroo may have delivered at least one painful kick.

Recently, the development secretary acknowledged that the government is under no statutory obligation to agree to a land exchange with the developer. In addition, it is now apparent that the 1994 scheme had a statutory deadline and although an attempt to perpetuate the scheme was made by the secretary of the Town Planning Board, by issuing a letter seven weeks after the deadline, that letter was written without the required delegated authority. If statutory procedures have been bypassed, what legal rights are government and the public being asked to "respect"?

I am a retired surveyor and believe the planning system is supposed to protect the public interest, but has been seriously defective against the commercial skills of developers.

An intrinsic weakness in the system is the appointment of a government planning official to the post of secretary to the board. Such officers usually have been entrenched within the planning department and are unlikely to have the independence of mind to handle this important job.

T. Farnworth, Mid-Levels

合和翻版 柴灣重建恐現屏風樓 高密度規劃早年獲批 類似發展區遍全港
10月8日 星期三 05:05

【明報專訊】灣仔合和中心二期（前稱Mega Tower）的逾90層高摩廈規劃，激起地區人士強烈反對，事件揭露發展商可利用早年獲城規會批准的高密度方案發展地皮，毋須回應近年的低密度訴求。但原來這類已被「放生」的綜合發展區全港有多達51個，並分佈港九各區。其中柴灣中巴車廠重建獲批以一字排開式興建4幢逾50層高住宅，被區議員炮轟製造「屏風」，明言將於區議會 上提出反對。

「綜合發展區」泛指可進行住宅、商業及休憩設施等綜合用途的地皮，但發展商發展前，須向城規會呈交「總綱發展藍圖」。現時全港共有112個綜合發展區，當中有51個發展藍圖已獲批，發展商完成收地和補地價後便可動工。

51個項目中，不少藍圖早在01至02年間已獲城規會批准，並設下約4年發展限期，發展商延期動工可申請續期，例如備受爭議的合和中心二期逾90層高摩廈方案，規劃早在94便已獲批。另外新鴻基地產 的元朗錦田沙埔項目，雖然涉及濕地保育問題，但規劃於2001年已獲批，去年新地申請將發展期限伸延至2010年亦獲批准，可以繼續推展。

建一排式53層住宅 方案05年獲續期

已空置多年的柴灣中華巴士車廠，發展商中巴公司於2002年2月獲批准以約6倍地積比率，以一字排開方式興建4幢約53層高的住宅，總發展樓面多達93萬平方呎，提供1300個單位（見圖）。其中4幢住宅將建於一個3層高的架空平台上，並伸延至鄰近的巴士站政府地皮，總樓宇高度達192米，地下則重置巴士站和公園。

事實上，柴灣車廠的02年規劃方案，原應在2005到期，發展商在2004年12月和今年1月兩度申請續期發展並獲批准，令該方案可應用至2011年。現時中巴正與政府商討換地，完成補地價談判後便可動工。

區議員轟城規會把關不力

東區區議會副主席鍾樹根及區議員黎志強均批評，發展商利用5至6年的落後規劃發展土地並不合適，城規會並無把關嚴防屏風樓，兩人均會在區議會跟進。黎志強指出，中巴車廠位於柴灣通風廊上，屏風樓會影響區內空氣。鍾樹根斥發展商將公園設在摩天住宅後方，休憩空間如被「私有化」，居民難以察覺和享用。

發展局發言人表示，城規會考 慮規劃續期申請，會研究自原來規劃批出後，規劃情况是否有任何重大改變，將限期延長是否合理，或在規劃上帶來不良的影響等。另外，若有發展商申請多次續期，總累積延長期限亦不得超過原來核准規劃的發展期。就中巴車廠個案，地政總署 已原則上接納發展商提出換地申請，申請仍在處理中。

明報記者 賴偉家

pfff still proposed?

this hopewell thing is taking wayy tooo long

Design looks good, I hope they will build it, despite the economic trouble. :)

This project would've survived several downturns :) 1997/2003/now.

Mega Tower's biggest problem is not really on heritage conservation, but rather the effect of putting such a huge development in an already congested area. I think the other arguments are just noise and would not play a prominent role in the opposition. Yet at the same time, Hopewell's plan was approved, so technically they're allowed to carry on even though they waited so long.

I think an outcome that should arise is for the planners to put a time limit deadline on when construction should start and finish after approval has been granted. Approvals should lapse if no actions are taken after some time.

If Hopewell is going for the original plan, all Hopewell needs is to put in an building permit application with the Building Department. Once it's approved, technically Hopewell can begin construction without legal issues despite the social controversies. This is talking about only weeks of time.

Moving forward, the planning board approval should really have an expiration if the developers do not move forward. A design that was done 14 years ago probably won't fit in today situation; especially for those off-site roadway improvements.

If Hopewell is going for the original plan, all Hopewell needs is to put in an building permit application with the Building Department. Once it's approved, technically Hopewell can begin construction without legal issues despite the social controversies. This is talking about only weeks of time.

Moving forward, the planning board approval should really have an expiration if the developers do not move forward. A design that was done 14 years ago probably won't fit in today situation; especially for those off-site roadway improvements.

If I were the government, I would never expect a developer would sit on an approval for so long! I'd expect construction to start and finish asap and sell the units to book the profits.

Mega Tower plan hits traffic obstacle
93-floor hotel's transport impact study rejected
25 October 2008
South China Morning Post

The proposed 93-storey Hopewell Centre II hotel in Wan Chai hit a hurdle yesterday when its transport impact assessment was rejected. The transport chief asked the developer to provide more details.

In response to independent legislator Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee's query on the development, formerly known as the Mega Tower, Commissioner for Transport Alan Wong Chi-kong said his department was not satisfied with the transport impact assessment report.

"We made a careful assessment of the report they submitted in mid-September, and we returned it through the Lands Department adding in our suggestions on traffic flow and traffic projection," Mr Wong said. "I can say that {hellip} their report does not pass our assessment."

In general, approval of a transport impact report is crucial for the endorsement of a major project, including an application for land exchange. The developer is required to estimate the project's impact on the district's traffic with formulas that take into account the number of floors and flats of the building, whether it is a commercial building, hotel or public utility; its distance from major roads; and an estimated growth rate in the area's traffic.

Sources familiar with the study said the Hopewell report would have to consider more factors in terms of the growth rate and traffic projection, and it was expected the adjustment should not take more than a month.

Mr Wong said the Transport Department had notified the developer of its decision on Tuesday.

A Hopewell Holdings spokeswoman said the developer would supply the required information as soon as possible.

She did not explain what part of the report needed clarification.

Wan Chai district councillor Peggy Lee Pik-yee said area residents had always hoped the government would conduct a traffic study on its own.

The government does not conduct the assessment for projects, but requires developers to do so, and would review the criteria and formula regularly, Mr Wong said yesterday to a question raised by Mrs Ip.

The developer submitted the updated assessment in September to project the 2016 traffic situation, because the hotel completion date was expected to be delayed from next year to 2014 or 2015. The developer has proposed widening Kennedy Road and Queen's Road East to accommodate the increase in traffic.

Hung Wing-tat, associate professor of engineering at Polytechnic University, said the existing road network in Wan Chai was close to capacity. "Unless development density is reduced, the road networks will hardly be able to sustain the traffic."

^^ Not surprised at all. Traffic is usually the easiest arguments from the public since everyone thinks there were experts.

Opinion : What do you think of the Mega Tower transport plan?
1 November 2008
South China Morning Post

What do you think of the Mega Tower transport plan?

The rejection by the Town Planning Board of the proposed "road-improvement work" on Kennedy Road by Hopewell Holdings came as a pleasant surprise ("Mega Tower plan hits traffic obstacle", October 25).

The developer initially sought approval of the project in a Wan Chai District Council meeting in April.

The project in essence was a means by which the developer could pave the way for the approval of its 93-storey Mega Tower on Kennedy Road.

Residents on Kennedy Road expressed fury over the project at two meetings.

At those meetings, representatives from various government departments were reluctant to directly answer many of the questions regarding the project and the methodology employed in their assessment process.

The Transport Department provided projected traffic-density figures only up to next year, which are at least five years before the Mega Tower project would be completed and which were used in the assessment of the proposal.

Further, the department would not detail the criteria used in its assessment, nor would it consider an independent assessment of these developer-supplied figures.

It took another four months before the Development Bureau finally provided a reply to a number of questions raised during the meetings.

However, many of these answers were vague and the methodologies employed in the assessment were not transparent.

A number of important questions remain unanswered.

What exactly are the criteria employed in the assessment process?

Why were the assessment points only at the junctions of Queen's Road East and Kennedy Road, and Queen's Road East and Spring Garden Lane, when the whole of Queen's Road East is already heavily congested with traffic, and further expansion of that road to alleviate the problem is impossible?

Why was an independent assessment of the traffic figures supplied by the developer not granted?

The government and Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen owe the public honest and detailed answers to many of these questions to curb the increasing belief that secret deals are being engaged between them and the developer.

A. Young, Mid-Levels

i hope that tower will become reality, HK needs another supertall :)

it looks like eco building...really modern indeed. i prefer these kind of buildings due to their profound appearance...if i may say so:)

Opinion : What do you think of the Mega Tower transport plan?
A. Young, Mid-Levels

I would love to read the traffic impact assessment.

Wan Chai needs diversity at street level
13 November 2008
South China Morning Post

In a letter ("Hotel project benefits all", November 5) John Cheng informs us that the "developer is negotiating to scale back the size of the hotel to cope with the environment". This is an interesting admission and begs the question as to who the developer is negotiating with. Certainly not with the residents of Kennedy Road and Wan Chai.

It is embarrassing to see how the government is paving the way for Hopewell Holding's version of Times Square and Pacific Place, aptly called Mega Tower. The discussion has been changed from whether Mega Tower is a land use suited for Queen's Road East and Kennedy Road to one of fine-tuning the design and traffic details of this development. Watch this newspaper for further softening up with news about minor adjustments.

Don't be surprised by the final dictated glorious conclusion that "the public aspirations have been taken into account, the plan has been adjusted to reduce the traffic impact, it will generate jobs, we can sell land and earn money, we have balanced all interests, it's a go-ahead".

Before the government sells land to Hopewell, it must prove that Wan Chai will be a great place to live, work and commute through. The public must ask for basic facts. Why rely on individual traffic impact assessments when, for example, Times Square proved that these are entirely inadequate to prevent road congestion? Where is the overall plan for development and transport demonstrating Wan Chai will be a sustainable quality environment to live and work in?

The outline zoning plan does not guarantee that the aspirations of the public for a quality and diverse street-level environment are catered for [with this project]. Nobody has shown what Wan Chai will be like once the Urban Renewal Authority and private developers have completed all permitted developments. There is an urgent need now to widen footpaths and create more pedestrian areas and public space. District councillors and their constituents complain about traffic congestion and want more road space which simply does not exist.

Rather than controlling development, the government is promoting some disjointed plans to take pedestrians off the pavements and force them into tunnels and on to footbridges, foregoing any plan or effort to create and guarantee a street-level environment which promotes community-building, interaction and a pleasant experience for visitors.

Paul Zimmerman, founding member, Designing Hong Kong

Just flip a flipping coin already for crying out loud.

Anyway, isn't this in the wrong section regardless?

RTHK News:
Hopewell's 'Mega Tower' to be cut back (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20081119/news_20081119_56_539008.htm)

Yup. It's over.
93 floors now down to 55, 315m now down to 210m.

合和中心二期樓面積大減三成 (港聞)
2008-11-19 (13:21)
發展局長林鄭月娥宣布，合和二期的新修訂的發展規劃，總樓面面積大幅縮減31%。

林鄭月娥出席立法會，並且公布降低灣仔合和二期發展項目的密度及高度，總建築樓面面積大幅縮減31%，地積比率由15倍降至10.3倍，建築物高度大幅削減，由315米減至210米，樓層93層減至55層，酒店房間亦減少一半，由2197間減至1024間，但發展商所提供的5800多平方米休憩空間，沒有改變，發展商亦承諾會加強保育工作。

她又稱，由於有關項目爭議多年，現時工程可以盡快上馬。並補充，合和二期發展降低密度政府從無施壓。

林鄭月娥指，從來未試過有發展商決定作出這樣大幅度的縮減，並主動提出保育毗鄰的南固台，以及將附近的1800米土地發展為保育地帶。今次證明發展商聽取了市民的訴求而作出修訂，政府表示支持。

what a pity :(

what a pity :(

I don't think it is really a pity at all, at least the project is really likely to be started.

RTHK News:
Hopewell 'not pressed over Mega Tower' (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20081120/news_20081120_56_539176.htm)

Small pic from singtao... better than nothing!

http://www.singtao.com/yesfront/20081120/images/f04.jpg

Cut down to size
Hong Kong Standard
Thursday, November 20, 2008

http://thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20081120/5_2008111922280763671hopewell1.jpg

http://thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20081120/6_2008111922280763671hopewell2.jpg

Hopewell Holdings is hoping to go ahead with its long-proposed Wan Chai Mega Tower - but it has been cut down to size.

The tower's height has been cut by a third and the capacity of a planned hotel reduced by half in its proposal. Along with the cuts comes a name change: it will now be called Hopewell Centre II.

Hopewell said it plans to spend at least HK$5 billion on the project, which along with office space and a 1,024-room hotel includes a public park. The company will also spend HK$400 million on a road improvement plan.

Work could begin next year if the plan is approved, Hopewell said, with the project completed by 2014 or 2015.

The cuts in the project, which was first proposed almost 30 years ago, follow more than six months of talks between Hopewell and the government. However, Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor denied the scale-back was due to government pressure.

"I am not the type of person that pressures people," Lam said. "Of course, all contractors hope to develop more but this time [Hopewell] has implemented social responsibility."

She added: "For many years, I have never seen a developer holding an approved project agreeing to such a large reduction."

Lam said because of the large cuts, the government is seeking legal advice to see if the new proposal is a class-A amendment - meaning it would not need to go before the Town Planning Board.

"The development will help rejuvenate a rather dilapidated area that has been lying i
dle for over 20, 30 years," Lam said.

Under the revised plan, the tower will be reduced from 93 stories to 55, a 40 percent drop, with the 210-meter height slightly lower than the adjacent 66-story Hopewell Centre's 222m.

The project's gross floor area will be reduced by 31 percent from Hopewell's 1994 proposal of 172,731 square meters with the plot ratio lowered from 15 to 10.3. Some 5,880 sq m of open public space will be retained. Hotel capacity will drop from 2,197 guestrooms.

The plan will be forwarded to Wan Chai District Council for approval next month, pending a review by the bureau and updated traffic analysis.

Hopewell co-managing director Thomas Wu Man-san said the project will create about 4,000 jobs with 500 initially, increasing to 1,900 at the peak of construction with another 1,100 jobs during the internal decoration stage.

There will be 900 permanent hotel jobs created and about 300 in shops.

He said the company did not have to raise additional funds for the scheme. Wu also denied suggestions Hopewell had come under government pressure and said the cuts would not affect revenue.

Hopewell said 60 percent of the development area is owned by the company with the rest by the government.

However, there are still some concerns about the development.

Civic Party lawmaker Tanya Chan said a three-week public consultation period should be granted for the public to air its views on the changes.

Wan Chai resident Sara Yin Pai-sze, meanwhile, said the project is still 55 stories too high.

Wake-up call for mega dream
Hong Kong Standard
Thursday, November 20, 2008

When it was first proposed 14 years ago, Mega Tower with its 93 stories drew lots of oohs and aahs from admirers and plenty of boos from critics.

But as the project kept getting deferred by dozens of rejections by the Town Planning Board - accompanied by legal threats by Hopewell head Gordon Wu Ying-sheung - the city also changed.

It lost its obsession with mega projects, instead preferring more neighborhood-friendly buildings.

Even the word "mega" lost its appeal following the construction of MegaBox in Kowloon Bay.

As the city, and planning, changed, and the project was reduced in size, Mega Tower became Hopewell Centre II.

"The change was made some months ago, and we thought there were some misunderstandings about the hotel project. Seeing as Hopewell is already a household name in Wan Chai district, we thought it better to rename the project," a Hopewell spokeswoman said. However, allegations over project sweeteners remain. Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet- ngor dismissed suggestions that preservation of the offsite Nam Koo Terrace was in exchange for her giving the latest proposal her approval.

In 2005, Civic Party lawmaker Alan Leong Kah-kit said Wu was able to wriggle out of a promise to build a pedestrian walkway in Wan Chai, exploiting a flawed town planning deal.

Included in the tycoon's plan for Wu Chung House completed in 1992, the walkway, which would have extended over Queen's Road East to ease pedestrian traffic received approval from the Town Planning Board. To be built within 12 months of a land exchange agreement with the government for the Mega Tower cum-Hopewell Centre II site, the walkway never materialized.

Secretary for Development speaks about Hopewell Centre II
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Government Press Release

Following is the transcript of the Secretary for Development, Mrs Carrie Lam, speaking to the media about the Hopewell Centre II project at the Legislative Council today (November 19):

Reporter: You said that the revised scheme was under Class A amendments. Could you further explain that?

Secretary for Development: I was responding to a question on whether the significantly revised and reduced Hopewell Centre II project would require Town Planning Board’s approval again. There is a standing provision in the Town Planning Ordinance which is supplemented by very detailed guidelines. If the changes proposed by the developer to an approved scheme are what they called Class A amendments, then there is no need to go back to the Town Planning Board. And by and large, the Class A amendments are those amendments which reduce the size of the project, reduce the height of the project and so and so on. So, preliminary checking by my Planning Department colleagues suggested that all those changes that the Hopewell has proposed are probably Class A amendments. But why I was saying that we were checking with the lawyers is because we have never seen such an extent of reduction. So, we have to go back to the spirit and the underlying rationale for that particular provision and for the definition of the Class A amendments to be very sure about there is no need to go back to the Town Planning Board. Because these days, we need to be legally safe because people who dislike the project, they still do legal challenges that they prefer. So, on procedure side, we are on very conservative side. We would try to make sure that everything is okay.

Reporter: The revised project (inaudible)

Secretary for Development: Traffic is not my expertise. As you know, traffic comes under the Transport Department. The Transport Department has vetted the previous traffic impact assessment based on the 1994 scheme and they have asked a series of questions. What the developers are now doing are to present different sets of traffic data and to justify why this reduced traffic flow together with the road improvement work that Hopewell is going to put into the project will solve the problem. Preliminary data that I have seen suggested that they should be able to cope with the additional traffic generated by this reduced development. This is really a process for the Transport Department. As far as the Development Bureau is concerned, my job is really to ensure that Hong Kong could move ahead with both the public sector and private sector investments especially at this point in time when we do need the economic stimulus and the creation of jobs. So, after more than half a year’s work, the discussion with the developer, I do feel that this is a scheme that I would recommend to the community for support, not only because in respect of the developer’s right to develop but also a good balance in terms of having significantly reduced the height and the density that help to rejuvenate a rather dilapidated area that has been lying idle for over 20, 30 years, let alone also the additional open space, 5,880 square metres, the additional hotel rooms and conference facilities that will enhance Hong Kong’s status as the centre for MICE (Meetings, Incentives, Conventions and Exhibitions). And also very dear to my heart, the preservation of this Grade I historic building, the Nam Koo Terrace. Thank you very much.

I hope the final product looks better than the renders. It's a shyte building.

HK$20m plan to save trees at tower site
Green groups press for changes
20 November 2008
South China Morning Post

The Hopewell Mega Tower project will include a HK$20 million plan for tree conservation and transplantation, but conservationists have urged the developer to build the hotel on cantilevers to preserve the trees instead of transplanting them.

And a leading conservation group is pressing ahead with a proposal calling for the site to be rezoned as green belt.

A study conducted by the developer earlier this year for the project - called Hopewell Centre II - found 510 trees on the site, including 12 trees growing in stone walls, which are regarded as heritage objects.

But Peter Li Siu-man, campaign manager of the Conservancy Association, has doubts.

"The trees are valuable. We believe some are 50 and 80 years old," he said. One Chinese banyan, which stands at one edge of the site, on Kennedy Road, is an "old and valuable tree" listed by the government.

Mr Li said that if Hopewell stuck to its plan to build the hotel tower on top of a podium, most trees would be affected.

"It depends how the podium is constructed. If it is a concrete structure, most trees on the ground will have to be transplanted, which will cause more damage. If the podium is supported by cantilevers, the trees can stay and damage will be less," he said. He urged the developer to give more details about the conservation plan.

Meanwhile, Mr Li's group will press ahead with its proposal to the Town Planning Board that the development site be rezoned into a green belt. The board will discuss the rezoning plan next month.

Ada Wong Ying-kay, former chairwoman of Wan Chai District Council, also hoped the trees would be preserved.

Apart from trees, the developer says the project will preserve and revitalise the disused Nam Koo Terrace on Ship Street, a grade one historic building owned by Hopewell.

The building is believed to have been built as early as 1915 and was first owned and lived in by a Shanghainese merchant. It was said to have been a comfort house for Japanese soldiers during the second world war.

Hopewell co-managing director Thomas Jefferson Wu said they had not decided on the use, but the building and the surrounding land would be open to the public.

Stephen Ng Kam-chun, vice-chairman of Wan Chai District Council, suggested it could be used as a restaurant, joining other fine dining establishments on the street. He also welcomed the height reduction.

Lee Ho-yin, director of the Architectural Conservation Programme at the University of Hong Kong, said an exhibition hall or a clubhouse would be a more compatible use given the building's domestic nature.

土地用途變完又變批地制崩潰
20/11/2008
http://the-sun.on.cc/channels/img/endmarker.gif

【本報訊】當局規劃土地用途準則不清。坐落於皇后大道東一百九十六至二百零六號，屬合和所有的QRE Plaza，地段用途曾發生多次變化，現時雖列為休憩用地，但卻建有商業大廈，政府正計劃把該幅土地用途「還原」為商業用途，以反映真實發展。不過，有議員批評城規會「出爾反爾再反爾」，質疑當局做法只是將錯就錯。

每次出租需向城規會申請
有關的土地原劃作住宅用途，業權屬合和所有，城規會於八一年本批准合和在該地段發展一幢辦公室大樓，其後卻因區內欠休憩用地，而把土地劃作休憩用地，合和雖有反對但並不強烈；及後合和決定在有關土地上興建商廈及將之出租，但由於土地的使用與其現時的劃定用途有別，故合和每次在把單位租予不同租客時均需向城規會申請，過去合和先後提交八次申請，全部獲批。

發展局局長林鄭月娥否認政府是將錯就錯，她解釋，業權屬合和所有，雖然城規會把土地列作休憩用地，但這個改動並不影響該辦公室大廈的發展。她又指與其每次合和把舖位租予新客戶時便要申請，更徹底的做法是將該地改回做商業用途，以反映已落成的發展，而合和正與規劃署商討提交更改規劃用途申請。建築界、測量及都市規劃界劉秀成則指，有關個案並不罕見，可能是由規劃署提議將該地從商業用地改為休憩用地，而最重要是城規會改變土地用途時，是從對社會有最大益處的角度考慮。

really nice project!

Am I the only one who thinks the tower looks a bit ... shit?

^^imo it looks way better than the original with the ultra-tacky revolving restaurant (and was tall enough that you can see its ugliness). Right now, it will just blend into HK's mass of skyscrapers and the design looks better and cleaner without the crap on top.

and btw this should be placed in Proposed Skyscrapers, not u/c highrises.

Aye - I think it was moved before the final height was known. So really, it could have gone in any one of the three categories.

^^imo it looks way better than the original with the ultra-tacky revolving restaurant (and was tall enough that you can see its ugliness). Right now, it will just blend into HK's mass of skyscrapers and the design looks better and cleaner without the crap on top.

Fair enough I suppose, but they really could have come up with something better. Hopewell Centre is a nice building, and it's going to look an eyesore next to it.

Opinion : What do you think of the revised Mega Tower project?
25 November 2008
South China Morning Post

What do you think of the revised Mega Tower project?

The timing of last Wednesday's announcements by the secretary for development and the managing director of Hopewell Holdings of the scaled-down Hopewell Centre II, or Mega Tower, project appear to have been a concerted effort to pre-empt a decision by the Town Planning Board on a rezoning application on this same Wan Chai site.

The Conservancy Association has put forward an environmentally friendly proposal to rezone an area of public land to "green belt". I understand that officials from the Development Bureau may have requested that the application be withdrawn. What does this say about co-operation between senior government officials and major developers? It displays a lack of respect for the Conservancy Association's efforts and all the more than 1,500 people who have taken the time to make a submission to the board giving their views on this rezoning.

Charlie Chan, Mid-Levels

Redevelopment is always a hot topic in our society. This time, the revised Mega Tower project drew my whole attention to the attitudes of the government and surprisingly the developers.

I think in general residents in Wan Chai have been opposed to the project, believing it was too high and would lead to traffic congestion. The developer finally responded to these objections and I greatly appreciate the fact that this hotel will be reduced in height. It is the first time that the government and developers have listened to people's views and responded. In the past our views have been neglected.

It is really important to strike a balance between economic development and enhancing our quality of life. I hope the government will listen to the views of residents with future projects.

Trista Yeung, Kwun Tong

I actually hope that's not the actual design but just a demonstration of the height difference. Even Vegas don't build hotels in that Y shape anymore. What is this public housing? lol.

This Sara Yin Pai-Tze said something that will upset the people that want the New Hopewell Tower built, the tower is 55 floors too high. That's about as low as we can get. Either build it this way or don't build it alt all.

Hopewell compromise shows way forward
20 November 2008
South China Morning Post

Hong Kong developers are not renowned for having a give-and-take attitude towards their projects. Hopewell Holdings' co-founder and chairman, Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung, is especially passionate when it comes to his firm's ideas. The announcement yesterday that the company had decided to give in to decades of community pressure and drastically reduce the size of its proposed "Mega Tower" complex in Wan Chai was, therefore, a surprise. Such a seismic shift in thinking is what is required if our city is to develop in a sustainable manner; we applaud the decision.

Such an outcome was unthinkable six months ago when Development Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor began negotiating with Hopewell. Sir Gordon proposed the Mega Tower 30 years ago when the company started acquiring land in the area. The firm stuck doggedly to the design despite increasingly vocal opposition from residents complaining that views and air flow would be blocked and that increases in traffic in the area, particularly along Kennedy Road, would be unbearably disruptive. There were objections that the height of the structure would disrupt the skyline of Hong Kong Island by extending beyond the ridge line of background hills. Rather than shelving the proposal, the company took advantage of a town planning loophole and kept it active by submitting slightly modified designs every two years.

In making the announcement, Sir Gordon's son, Thomas Jefferson Wu, denied government pressure was the reason for the turnaround. He contended Hopewell had decided to listen to public opinion; its move, he said, was a practical way forward. It is good that the company has seen reason and decided to meet most of the demands of critics. Mrs Lam must similarly be commended for her part in resolving the dispute in so favourable a manner.

The tower brings benefits to Hong Kong. Amid so much concern about the economic downturn, it is the type of infrastructure project we need to help soften the blow. Hopewell will spend HK$5 billion bringing it to fruition and when completed in 2015, if work starts next year as planned, 4,000 jobs will be created. About 1,500 workers will be needed to build it. It will further enhance a part of Wan Chai that Hopewell revitalised by siting its headquarters there in 1980.

Despite Hopewell's announcement, there remain some doubts about the proposal. Town Planning Board approval may yet be needed; a legal opinion is being sought. Some residents are still not convinced and want to view detailed plans. A traffic flow study has yet to be carried out. But Hopewell has shown it is willing to compromise. While the balance that the developer hopes to strike may not meet the expectations of some of its opponents, it is to be hoped that their remaining differences can be quickly and smoothly dealt with. A sensible solution that would serve as a possible lesson to other developers and community groups is what Hong Kong needs to move the city forward.

Gov't Press Release:
LCQ1: Hopewell Centre II (http://info.gov.hk/gia/general/200811/26/P200811260138.htm)

Opinion : What do you think of the revised Mega Tower project?
27 November 2008
South China Morning Post

I understand that Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor denied that the scaling back of the Mega Tower project in Wan Chai was due to governmental pressure.

Mrs Lam is being too modest in ascribing her mediation role between the public outcry and the developer's ambitions.

For four years public objection to this scheme was met with bureaucratic obduracy and persistent rhetoric on the status of the 1994 scheme, and it was only after Mrs Lam's appointment that there were the first signs that the government was actually listening.

This case has proved that the planning system is incapable of controlling major developers, and, in spite of Mrs Lam's modesty, I believe top-level bureau influence has played a part.

However, the deal will not be complete until it is signed and, without detracting from Hopewell Holdings' pragmatism, it is still essential to protect the public interest.

It is necessary that all the detailed settlements are agreed by the statutory body, the Town Planning Board.

Good governance requires more than expediency, and as Mrs Lam was a former chairman of the Town Planning Board she should understand the importance of this legitimising step.

Frank Lee, Mid-Levels

合和二期換地惹質疑
27/11/2008
http://the-sun.on.cc/channels/img/endmarker.gif

【本報訊】港府與合和集團雖就合和二期發展項目取得共識，但立法會議員對集團以逾五千平方米私人土地換取項目內大部分為斜坡的政府土地表示質疑，批評換地過程不公開，難釋外界認為事件或涉利益輸送之疑。發展局局長林鄭月娥強調，發展商與政府換地亦須補地價，並稱事件「經得起廉政公署考驗」。

過程未公開
民主黨何俊仁質疑，如合和二期般的換地計劃，發展商都不用經公開招標或競投就可獲得政府批地，即使要補地價以反映市值，但因過程不公開，或會予人利益輸送的感覺，當局應重新檢討有關政策。公民起動何秀蘭亦要求，當局應公開計算補地價的方法，以杜絕利益輸送。

林鄭月娥強調合和二期項目內的政府用地都是斜坡，合和以逾五千平方米的私人土地來換取，有關土地不適宜公開拍賣，或以分割式處理，她強調政府事前有作出估值，經得起廉署考驗。地政總署會聽取居民意見，以及在完成道路交通改善計劃，才落實原址換地。

此外，換地條件包括保育樹木條款，合和早前亦已表示投入二千萬元保育及移植樹木。而城規會於九四年批出合和二期計劃時，亦要求合和提交園景美化計劃及砍伐樹木報告，並需令規劃署署長或城規會滿意，合和在得到政府書面同意前，不可移走或干擾地盤上的樹木。

Collusion claims on Hopewell tower rejected
27 November 2008
Hong Kong Standard

Officials insist the land transfer of Hopewell Center II will stand up to anti- corruption scrutiny, despite claims by lawmakers that the project is another example of collusion between big business and government.

Responding to questions raised by Frontier legislator Cyd Ho Sau-lan, Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor denied claims that the transfer of 4,000 square meters of public land for the scaled-down hotel development, formerly known as MegaTower, would be to the advantage of the developer.

On premium payment, Lam said: ``We do have a comprehensive mechanism which stands up to scrutiny by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.'' Hopewell Holdings has applied to the Lands Department for an ``in-situ exchange,'' which will see 5,000 square meters of privately held land surrendered in exchange for the whole 9,000-square- meter plot.

The public land being surrendered is mainly made up of slopes so compensation paid by the developer will depend on market valuations by surveyors who will take into account changes in land values before and after the development's completion.

Hopewell is also pledging HK$20 million for a tree conservation project in which 650 trees will be added to the existing 100.

Although Lam said public views would be taken into account in the Lands Department's scrutiny of the transfer, some legislators were unconvinced. Democratic Party lawmaker Kam Nai- wai said: ``This is an excuse. People get the impression this is an excuse for government-developer collusion.

``The secretary said there is an objective and fair mechanism, but if you do not engage in tendering and public auction how can you ensure fairness in the process?'' he asked.

Fellow Democrat Albert Ho Chun- yan said: ``In the absence of a tendering exercise, simply evaluating the market value may not be able to reflect fully the situation and the aspirations for land matters to be handled in a fair and transparent manner.''

He also called for a review of land exchange regulations and for public consultation. Responding to whether the scope of traffic assessments should be extended beyond Kennedy Road and Queen's Road East to see how an extra 500 cars would impact traffic to and from Happy Valley and the Cross-Harbour Tunnel, Lam said analysis would be conducted.

Residents oppose Hopewell bid to rezone plaza for commercial use
1 December 2008
South China Morning Post

Wan Chai residents say the government will make a big blunder if it allows the QRE Plaza site in Queen's Road East to be rezoned for commercial use.

The site is at present zoned open space, despite the fact that it includes restaurants, shops and a dancing school.

It is owned by Hopewell Holdings and was originally earmarked for office building development in 1981.

In 1994, it was rezoned for open-space land use by the Town Planning Board. But Hopewell recently asked the board to rezone the QRE Plaza site for commercial use.

Kennedy Road Protection Group, a group of concerned Wan Chai residents, claims that the 1994 rezoning was part of a land-exchange scheme between the government and Hopewell Holdings.

They say the developer at that time was seeking approval to build a 93-storey hotel skyscraper - Hopewell Mega Tower.

The residents say the government and Hopewell Holdings struck a deal in 1994 that allowed Hopewell to develop the 93-storey Mega Tower in exchange for the zoning of the QRE Plaza site as open space, and that is the way it should stay despite the cut in the size of the Mega Tower.

"The developer should not be allowed to develop both the Mega Tower and the QRE Plaza," said Sally Ho Yuen-ping, spokeswoman for the resident group.

But Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said in Legco that the board had not included the QRE site in any deal relating to construction of the Mega Tower. "Although the site was subsequently rezoned to open space, such rezoning does not affect the office development which had already been granted planning permission."

That means, according to the government, Hopewell can still build an office tower on the QRE Plaza site.

Ms Ho accused the government of using the rezoning procedures to rationalise mistakes it had made by allowing businesses in an area zoned for open-space land use.

Legislator Tanya Chan, who has been helping the residents, urged the board to reject the latest rezoning request from Hopewell.

Conservationist Katty Law Ngar-ning said she would file a request to the Ombudsman for a review of the Development Bureau's handling of the zoning issue.

准建QRE政府罔顧公眾利益
01/12/2008

【本報訊】一批灣仔堅尼地道居民質疑合和QRE Plaza的土地原規劃是休憩用地，但竟然興建了寫字樓，批評港府將合和利益凌駕公眾利益，而城市規劃委員會則為橡皮圖章亂批修改土地用途申請。居民稍後會在合和中心前收集街坊反對新規劃的簽名，並向申訴專員公署申訴。

休憩用地改商業地帶
居民代表何婉屏表示，位於皇后大道東的QRE Plaza原本為住宅地，合和在八一年獲准建商業大廈，但到一九九四年，合和為了興建Mega Tower，願意交出該地給港府轉作休憩用地，同年完成該地段的用途修訂。

不過，去年在該幅修訂為休憩用途的土地上卻有QRE Plaza落成，何婉屏指區內居民對此大為不滿，認為這是港府將合和利益凌駕了公眾利益，QRE Plaza落成後，如今合和又再向城規會申請將QRE Plaza所處土地，由休憩用地改劃為商業地帶，變相將QRE Plaza合法化。

立法會議員何秀蘭稱，「若城規會批准合和申請，即是出爾反爾，甘願做橡皮圖章，亦反映整個城規制度崩潰，分區計劃大綱圖也是廢的！」

另一位議員陳淑莊則稱，她曾去信港府要求解釋，但未有回覆。http://the-sun.on.cc/channels/img/endmarker.gif

Demand for scrutiny of Hopewell II
1 December 2008
Hong Kong Standard

Residents and legislators are calling on the Town Planning Board to scrutinize amended plans for Hopewell Centre II in an attempt to allay fears of traffic congestion and protect public parks.

Man Yuen Garden resident Roger Emmerton said that is essential in view of all the controversy surrounding the development.

``It's a wonder why the amendments are not being sent back to the Town Planning Board, which is a relatively short process,'' Emmerton said.

A bid to end the more than 30-year- struggle by Hopewell chairman Gordon Wu Ying-sheung to have his Mega Tower cum-Hopewell Centre II realized has taken a giant step forward with a recent announcement that the density of the development will be reduced.

But a revelation by Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor that the changes will likely bypass the planning board has irked people living nearby.

Even before work may start, a controversial land exchange agreement remains to be completed and those living in the area are disturbed by its lack of transparency.

Emmerton said 10 different incarnations of the Hopewell proposals have at different times tried to leverage five separate plots as a public park to get more continuous land near the site of Hopewell Centre II.

He said the public park proposals were gradually curtailed throughout the years until 5,880 square meters along Ship Street to Kennedy Road proposed in 1985 became only 2,030 sqm in the approved 1994 plan.

On greater board scrutiny, Emmerton said a site at 196-206 Queen's Road East zoned as open space in 1995 was quietly developed into a commercial tower with three minor amendments passed by a single board member.

Civic Party lawmaker Tanya Chan Shuk-chong is calling for all details of the land exchange agreement to be made public.

Chan also wants more transparency in land use agreements and mechanisms.

Frontier legislator Cyd Ho Sau-lan said the land exchange agreement is vulnerable to manipulation and collusion.

http://codebloo.net/stuff/picard-headesk.jpg

Shortened Hopewell Centre II does not need planning approval
6 December 2008
South China Morning Post

The development plan of the shortened Hopewell Centre II, previously known as the Mega Tower, does not need approval from the Town Planning Board, the Development Bureau has said after legal advice.

The Planning Department also revealed in a letter to Civic Party lawmaker Tanya Chan yesterday that Hopewell had suggested turning a site on 196-206 Queen's Road East - now the QRE Plaza - into open space as part of the Mega Tower project. But it was not incorporated as a condition in the planning permit issued.

Last month Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor announced that the 93-storey hotel in Wan Chai would be trimmed to just over 50 storeys. This followed years of negotiations with Hopewell Holdings. She also said the government would seek legal advice to see if the project, approved by the Town Planning Board in 1994, needed to be examined by the board again.

Responding to questions raised by Ms Chan, the Development Bureau said it was not necessary for Hopewell to seek approval again after considering the principles of the Town Planning Board Ordinance and board guidelines.

"The revised proposal will not reduce the public facilities included in the original plan and the project will be scaled down," the bureau said in the letter. A Development Bureau spokeswoman confirmed the decision was supported by legal advice, and it would seek the views of Town Planning Board members later.

In the face of public opposition to the government's plan to change the zoning of the QRE Plaza from open space to commercial use, the director of the Planning Department, Ava Ng Tse Suk-ying, said in another letter to Ms Chan that Hopewell did mention creating an open space on the site of the plaza as part of the 1994 Mega Tower plan.

She said the board did not secure the idea as a planning condition because the site was not within the boundaries of the project.

Although the department later zoned the site as open space to reflect the developer's original intention, she said the QRE Plaza was approved in 1981, 13 years earlier than the approval of the Mega Tower project, and the approval was still effective.

"A commercial building was allowed to be built on an open space, showing the government did not gatekeep well," Ms Chan said. She said the government should not allow the revised project to bypass the board's approval.

合和二期修訂項目進行審批
6 December 2008
信報

合和實業（054）旗下合和中心二期日前終落實大幅降低發展密度，發展局最新表示，發展商已就修訂項目提交交通影響評估報告和就道路改善工程計劃提出申請，相關部門正按程序跟進。

該局回覆公民黨立法會議員陳淑莊的去函時指出，倘運輸署接納有關方案，將會向灣仔區議會諮詢，及後刊憲及讓公眾人士提出意見。由於合和實業早前同意公開二○○八年的交通影響評估報告，發展局亦已向發展商表示，前述的方案倘獲接納後亦將公開，以助灣仔區居民了解項目詳情。此外，城規會亦毋須重新審議修訂方案。

另外，規劃署署長伍謝淑瑩的回覆函件上則指出，雖然發展商早年曾提出將QRE Plaza現址作為合和中心二期的換地範圍並作休憩用地，唯城規會當年在考慮合和中心二期項目時，QRE Plaza用地在重建區之外，故只建議發展商可與政府磋商換地事宜。此外，地政總署亦認為，用地不在重建範圍內，不應納入換地討論中。

她表示，一九九四年城規會改劃QRE Plaza用地作「休憩用地」，相信用作反映長遠規劃意向。至於現有的寫字樓，則以一九八一年已取得的規劃許可作技術修訂，發展商亦在上月向城規會申請將整幅用地由「休憩用地」改為「商業」用途。規劃署強調，隨環境和客觀事實改變申請改劃用途，不能被視作先前規劃的失誤。

就前述回覆，陳淑莊質疑換地等事宜涉及有人失職錯批，讓發展商可在休憩用地上興建QRE Plaza；她並要求政府和發展商將合和中心二期的新舊圖則公開，讓各方了解項目最新情況■

發展局3C 解談判死結
5 December 2008
香港經濟日報

合和二期這個拖拉近30年的工程，港府和發展商多年來積累下來的矛盾，突然撥開雲霧見青天，有望明年底動工，究竟發展局局長林鄭月娥，和合和主席胡應湘之子胡文新，兩人有何微妙的化學作用，令官商可達致雙贏局面？

政策要穩定清晰 具一致性

據知情人士透露，港府和合和的談判，也長達一年，最關鍵是發展商肯作出重大讓步；其次是胡文新作為第二代，沒有父親胡應湘那麼多包袱，令談判順利。

據悉，在長達一年的磋商中，並不存在發展商提出不同方案，來來回回反覆商討；反而是政府清脆利落地提出規限，讓發展商考慮，繼而得出最新的讓步方案。

消息又指，港府談判過程中，主要是手執三個C；包括政策的Certainty（穩定性）、Clarity（清晰性）和Consistency（一致性）；尤其是政策的一致性，對發展商最為重要。

首先是Certainty，即政策要穩定和連貫性，不要左搖右擺，叫發展商試甲方案，然後又試乙方案，但結果還是備受攻擊，令發展商不勝煩擾。

第二是Clarity，即把要求講得清楚，因對做生意來說，最重要是將政府的要求講得一清二楚，發展商才能計算整個計劃的成本，及是否有利可圖。

第三是Consistency，即一致性，對所有發展商一視同仁，不會有所偏頗。

胡文新大幅讓步 獲父默許

港府消息指，胡文新沒有父親的包袱之餘，也積極聽取地區和環保人士意見，對原計劃作出修訂；當然胡文新背後也是得到父親胡應湘的默許，否則不可以成事，而胡應湘也很識做，躲在背後，歸功於兒子。

Rezoning plan for Wan Chai site rejected
18 December 2008
South China Morning Post

A green group's proposal to rezone half of the Hopewell Centre II site as a green belt has not been supported by the Planning Department.

In a paper to be discussed by the Town Planning Board tomorrow, the department says retaining the present zoning as a "comprehensive redevelopment area" would encourage the developer to provide open space. It adds that planning approval had long been granted for the proposed hotel - known as Mega Tower before it was scaled down from 93 storeys.

The director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation had advised that the proposed area was well-wooded and rezoning would help preserve trees.

The Conservancy Association, which made the application, said rezoning would affect only government land, which forms half the site area, and would not take away developer Hopewell Holdings' development right.

It added that the remaining private land could still be fully utilised by the developer to build a hotel of an appropriate scale.

The association said the proposed area, densely covered by shrubs and mature trees, would provide a visual corridor and readily available public open space, with no need to ask the developer to help provide man-made public spaces. Its proposal has drawn 952 supporting comments and 614 objections from the public.

Hopewell, among the objectors, said rezoning would bring uncertainty to the development and abuse the planning system to further a political agenda.

The developer said it had a good track record in urban renewal and providing public planning gains, and rezoning would delay its commitment on the hotel.

In the approved plan, the developer will provide 5,880 square metres of public open space, and will preserve and transplant healthy trees within the site.

Meanwhile, the Town Planning Board decided at a confidential meeting last Friday that the revisions of the hotel plan, including the reductions in plot ratio, building height and number of hotel rooms, were all "Class A amendments", which do not need the board's approval because they are minor changes and have no bad planning impact.

The board said such an arrangement would streamline the approval process.

Its decision drew criticism from lawmaker Tanya Chan, who said the confidential nature of the decision-making process would prevent the public from monitoring the project.

Green group fears plan to save wall trees will fail
19 December 2008
South China Morning Post

A green group has challenged the tree preservation proposal for the Hopewell Centre II hotel project, saying transplanting the valuable wall trees was unlikely to succeed.

The site is the only place in Wan Chai where the trees rooted in walls can still be found, Conservancy Association campaign manager Peter Li Siu-man said. The wall was part of the private Tung Chi College, which has been mostly demolished.

The project, between Queen's Road East and Kennedy Road, was initially known as Mega Tower.

Mr Li said the site could be readily turned into a relics park joining nearby historic buildings.

Although none of the 510 trees, including the 12 wall trees, on the site are listed in the government's old and valuable tree registry, they nonetheless form natural woodland and a green wedge leading from Mid-Levels, he said.

The developer, Hopewell Holdings, has announced it would spend HK$20 million to transplant and preserve some of the healthy trees, but the green group is doubtful.

One 25-metre Chinese banyan planted in a wall at the site, for example, may be valuable.

"I am not confident that this tree will survive if transplanted," said the group's conservation manager and tree expert, Ken So Kwok-yin. "Its roots have extended deep inside the wall. It is difficult to move the whole thing without causing damage."

He estimated the tree was about 30 to 50 years old.

Jim Chi-yung, a tree expert at the University of Hong Kong, described the tree as surprisingly beautiful and said transplanting it would almost be impossible, "unless they lift the whole wall together with the mud using a crane. But the place may be too small for vehicles to get in."

The association applied to the Town Planning Board to rezone the government land as green belt. It wants the developer to build the hotel on its share of the land. The board will discuss the proposal today.

合和二期創500職 建造業受惠
16 December 2008
香港經濟日報

【本報訊】金融海嘯嚴重打擊本港建造業，但有私人發展商卻在逆市中計劃施工。香港建造業總工會估計，明年第四季上馬的合和中心二期，施工期間會提供500個職位，並且促請政府加快推出小型工程，創造更多職位。

澳門多項工程相繼停工，香港建造業總工會理事長蔡鎮華預計，今年底前約有5,000至6,000名工人回港，預料明年春節情況更為嚴峻，再有1,000至2,000人回流。

他指出，基於大部分工人由香港承建商聘請，估計當中7至8成工人現時仍有短期工作在手，但長遠而言仍需大型工程解困。

對於有私人工程在逆市時仍上馬，如明年第四季動工的合和中心二期酒店，他對此表示讚賞，估計該工程施工期間會為500人提供就業機會，涉及工種包括機電、裝修等。

工會促小型工程上馬

政府在本立法年度推出166項小型工程，蔡對此表示歡迎，認為可解本港工人燃眉之急，冀當局能加快推出速度，而有望明年上馬的港珠澳大橋，他又希望成功投標者能聘用約8成本地工人，同時強制部分預製組件在本港生產，以增加就業機會。

從事泥水近51年的王先生，自金融海嘯後失業近2個月。他表示，10月後不少私人小型裝修工程停工，部分客戶甚至撻訂放棄裝修。「沙氏時最差曾有2個月失業，但今次可能明年3月後才有工開。」他坦言，幸好家庭經濟壓力不大，但期望政府工程盡快推出。

Opinion : Department must provide full disclosure on Hopewell Centre II
26 December 2008
South China Morning Post

I refer to the confidential decision of the Town Planning Board that design changes to the Hopewell Centre II, or Mega Tower, were so minor that they did not need the board's approval ("Rezoning plan for Wan Chai site rejected" December 18).

In 1994 when the project was approved there was no public consultation.

Now, after five years of public debate and criticism of a planning system that has failed to protect the public interest (on the 1994 scheme), it is an insult to the public that changes to the scheme are again being implemented behind closed doors - and in fact delegated to the level of district planning officer.

The fact that Hopewell Holdings has, under pressure, shown a willingness to modify the scheme is not an excuse for the Planning Department to exclude the views of the public on these changes.

The department should immediately make known the following:

Absolute confirmation that the maximum gross floor area is 101,667 square metres and that no extra "hidden" bonuses will be allowed;

The nature, extent and impact on the locality of roadworks to be carried out by the developer, since clearly they include massive structures that will encroach onto the public domain;

The construction duration and impact of these roadworks which will create noise, disruption and diversions both in Kennedy Road and Queen's Road East;

The location of the existing mature trees that will avoid the massive concrete podium (which appears to cover the entire site area); and

An explanation of why a major portion of the site is allowed as private open space at a time when the secretary for development has recognised the failure of the private open space concept, from the community point of view.

The astonishing statement by the Planning Department that "zoning as a comprehensive redevelopment area would encourage the developer to provide open space" is utter nonsense given the history of this site since 1985 and the Town Planning Board's definition of "open space".

Roger Emmerton, Wan Chai

Green group fears plan to save wall trees will fail
19 December 2008
South China Morning Post

A green group has challenged the tree preservation proposal for the Hopewell Centre II hotel project, saying transplanting the valuable wall trees was unlikely to succeed.

The site is the only place in Wan Chai where the trees rooted in walls can still be found, Conservancy Association campaign manager Peter Li Siu-man said. The wall was part of the private Tung Chi College, which has been mostly demolished.

The project, between Queen's Road East and Kennedy Road, was initially known as Mega Tower.

Mr Li said the site could be readily turned into a relics park joining nearby historic buildings.

Although none of the 510 trees, including the 12 wall trees, on the site are listed in the government's old and valuable tree registry, they nonetheless form natural woodland and a green wedge leading from Mid-Levels, he said.

The developer, Hopewell Holdings, has announced it would spend HK$20 million to transplant and preserve some of the healthy trees, but the green group is doubtful.

One 25-metre Chinese banyan planted in a wall at the site, for example, may be valuable.

"I am not confident that this tree will survive if transplanted," said the group's conservation manager and tree expert, Ken So Kwok-yin. "Its roots have extended deep inside the wall. It is difficult to move the whole thing without causing damage."

He estimated the tree was about 30 to 50 years old.

Jim Chi-yung, a tree expert at the University of Hong Kong, described the tree as surprisingly beautiful and said transplanting it would almost be impossible, "unless they lift the whole wall together with the mud using a crane. But the place may be too small for vehicles to get in."

The association applied to the Town Planning Board to rezone the government land as green belt. It wants the developer to build the hotel on its share of the land. The board will discuss the proposal today.

環團促合和保留天然石牆樹
19 December 2008

【東方日報專訊】城市規劃委員會今早將討論環保團體長春社申請，要求把灣仔合和中心二期地盤其中一幅政府土地重新規劃成綠化地帶，雖然遭否決機會極高，但為免多棵逾八十年歷史石牆樹及全港僅餘的都市綠洲消失，長春社一班成員及灣仔區居民昨午在船街一棵石牆樹繫上綠絲帶，向合和及城規會爭取石牆樹「原封不動」，長春社指：「○樹天然生出櫬，唔係人工重植種得番。」

成功移植機會不高

長春社保育經理蘇國賢表示，擬建的合和二期地盤原種植有大量珍貴樹木，當中包括多棵逾八十年歷史的石牆樹，根據該社與發展商合和實業早前會面，合和承諾撥出二千萬元保育樹木，但對包括大、細葉榕等石牆樹的具體安排則欠詳細計劃。

由於石牆樹成功移植機會不高，因此長春社認為合和既然計劃在該幅涉及政府土地的斜坡興建綠化公園，倒不如直接保留現有石牆樹，長春社並於今年九月向城規會申請將該幅現時規劃為綜合發展區的土地，改變成綠化地帶。

在今早向城規會陳述意見前，一班長春社成員及灣仔區居民昨午在船街，前身為同濟中學石牆外的細葉榕上繫上綠絲帶，參加者包括約廿年前於同濟中學任桝的吳彥強。

他表示，外地遊客訪港未必喜歡欣賞新式現代建築，反而具原始風貌的樹景為難得一見，因此希望發展商「原址保留」仍然健康的石牆樹。

Wu ready to face grilling in Legco
29 December 2008
Hong Kong Standard

Hopewell managing director Thomas Jefferson Wu Man-san is willing to face lawmakers on the Hopewell Centre II project, he said in an interview with The Standard. Despite a swift decision to scale down the size of the new building, the company still faced criticism from political parties doubting its sincerity, with Wu being lambasted for not explaining the issue to the Legislative Council. He said he does not find the Legco culture terrifying and noted that lawmakers were only performing their duty. "Legislators are representatives of the people. They are only monitoring society for the people's interest," Wu said.

Commenting on the political environment, Wu said it was only natural people have higher expectations and demands after their basic needs have been fulfilled.

He had spent a year meeting government officials and representatives at the district level over the Hopewell project, and would be "very willing" to meet with the legislators should he be invited.

Wu's father and group chairman, Gordon Wu Ying-sheung, first proposed the development almost 30 years ago. But the project, formerly known as Mega Tower, could not proceed because of its size.

Thomas Wu's swift decision to cut 40 percent of the original proposal won praise from Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

Wu recalled when he first met Lam, he was asked whether he had any experience in dealing with people in the community.

He said he explained his experience in dealing with some government officials, schools and non- government organizations on setting up his ice hockey academy.

Gordon Wu was known for his outspoken character _ since the 1990s, he had criticized the government for not building the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge. He was also outspoken on political issues.

"Many government officials I met praised my father for his contribution. I may not have the same style as him. I welcome communication and I hope people can understand our company better," the younger Wu said.

His faith in the three Cs _ clarity, consistency and certainty _ helped him make the swift decision on Hopewell Centre II in Wan Chai.

"Certainty is what everybody looks for, no matter if you are a developer or an ordinary household. One's property represents most of one's assets in Hong Kong. We need to have certainty before making any investment decision," Wu said, adding he sees nothing wrong with the current executive-led system in Hong Kong.

Opinion : Citizens are now standing up to developers
1 January 2009
South China Morning Post

Citizens are now standing up to developers

John Cheng ("Strike balance between causes", December 25), is concerned that one of our developers is being unfairly picked on.

Given that all of Hong Kong's richest people are in property, one finds is difficult to view them as innocent victims. There are ample reasons to pick on all developers - Sino Land, and others, for massive tower-wall projects over MTR stations; Cheung Kong and Henderson Land for blocking natural light and air in North Point; New World and Wharf hell-bent on building concrete walls on the Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront; Swire for its controversial Castle Steps project in Mid-Levels; and Sun Hung Kai for its Manhattan Hill podium. The list is endless but, as Mr Cheng has written a number of letters supporting the Mega Tower project, the developer he refers to is presumably Hopewell Holdings.

He says: "Hong Kong needs mature political leaders to lead us into the future." We certainly do and these leaders must have the courage to stand up for their constituents who have had their basic human rights to fresh air, natural light and public open space trampled upon by long-standing cosy arrangements between our government and developers.

The Mega Tower saga is a textbook example of such collusion.

A lapsed application is the basis for this development. To date, no document that validates the extension of building approval in 1996 has ever been produced.

The approval was not extended and the developer and the administration will do anything to avoid any legal process that rules on this and reveals collusion and lapses in due process.

Then there is the question as to how Hopewell was allowed to build QRE Plaza on a designated green site and why the secretary for development is trying to manipulate the Town Planning Board to retrospectively rezone the site. Here, we open another can of worms. Hopewell is not being picked on. Opposition to the Mega Tower is the beginning of the revolt of the middle class against the forces that leave us with a quality of life well below that of the working class in other communities. Young and upcoming politicians are astute enough to recognise this.

Citizens have found their voice and will no longer tolerate being peasants in their own land. Projects that are not compatible with the general good will be contested.

Candy Tam, Wan Chai

黎廣德憂合和二期成數碼港翻版
3 January 2009
信報

政府和發展商尚未交代合和中心二期經修訂後的發展詳情，公民黨昨天去信發展局局長林鄭月娥，促她與發展商進行換地協議前，盡快公開資料就項目諮詢公眾。副主席黎廣德質疑，政府首次如此主動推動商業發展項目上馬，由監管者的角色變為推動者，擔心變為數碼港翻版。

公民黨在信中指，曾多次去信林鄭月娥及規劃署署長，要求公開合和中心二期的修訂詳情，並進行公眾諮詢，但對方在回覆中僅提及會公開計劃的交通影響評估報告和道路改善工程，至今未有提及整個發展計畫的詳情。公民黨信件促請當局在經公眾諮詢和通過相關的交通影響評估前，不能與發展商展開任何有關換地協議的討論。

黎廣德接受查詢時指，政府曾協助發展商修訂有關項目，令其獲城市規劃委員會通過為「輕微修訂」，做成既定事實，是倒退的做法。他稱，不少發展項目在申請程序上都會遇到阻撓，但今次政府如此主動協力，情況就像數碼港，政府的角色由監管者變成推動者，相當危險。

黎廣德又稱，林鄭月娥指項目的總建築樓面面積較一九九四年核准計劃大幅削減約三成，有誤導之嫌。他指出，原因是發展商在該地盤只有大約百分之五十六的地皮，所謂縮小後的發展規模，仍比其原有地皮多出四成。

據了解，地產及建造界立法會議員石禮謙對政府主動協助合和亦感到不滿，石禮謙接受查詢時予以否認，他表示，絕對支持有關項目，並直言，「人地做佐幾十年，點會反對。」■

合和實業（００５４）發表合和二期交通報告，遭議員質疑欠獨立性
(經濟通)1月14日 星期三 09:51

合和實業（０００５４）昨發表「合和二期交通影響評估報告摘要」，將斥資４億元進行道路改善工程，料於２０１６年合和二期完工時，可紓緩附近一帶的交通擠塞問題。

公民黨 陳淑莊議員質疑合和低估交通的影響，批評報告由發展商委託顧問公司撰寫，欠缺獨立性，難令人信服。（ｗｔ）

^^ Yeah, the traffic impact assessment is written by a private consultant paid by Hopewell, but it still required review and approval from Transport Department.
The TD isn't responsible to do TIA for private developments, and if the developer don't pay the consultant, then who should? The community?

Hopewell II 'blocks mansion'
Joyce Ng
Updated on Jan 19, 2009
South China Morning Post

The road improvement plan for the Wan Chai development Hopewell Centre II is under challenge from a mansion owner, who said a proposed flyover would block the mansion's entrance and render his approved redevelopment plan unviable.

The flyover, to connect Hopewell Centre II's 55-storey conference hotel podium to Kennedy Road, would land at the entrance of the mansion at 64 Kennedy Road. Hopewell Centre II was known as Mega Tower before the project was scaled down.

The mansion's owner, Henry Ngan, whose father founded China Motor Bus, said at a residents' meeting yesterday that the flyover would clash with his redevelopment plan, which was approved by the Town Planning Board and Buildings Department in 2004. His grade-three historic building would be torn down to make way for two 15-storey residential buildings.

Dr Ngan said the flyover landing would be too close to the entrance for fire engines to get into a planned emergency access area, and merging traffic would create a black spot.

"Our plan came before his [Sir Gordon Wu of Hopewell Holdings]. A developer should not take away our right to develop when he comes late."

Dr Ngan's consultant architect, Vincent Ng Wing-shun, said he was concerned the Fire Services Department would not endorse such a blocked emergency access. "It would be unfair if the government allows one plan to defeat an approved one."

A Hopewell spokesman said a "halt" sign would be added at the flyover landing so vehicles leaving the hotel would stop and give priority to cars accessing Dr Ngan's site. He said the mansion's entrance was not located where the land lease required.

Mega Tower clears another hurdle
Olga Wong
Updated on Jan 14, 2009
South China Morning Post

Hopewell Holdings cleared the last departmental hurdle to developing its Hopewell Centre II in Wan Chai after the Transport Department approved the project's traffic impact assessment last week.

Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said earlier the bureau would decide on how much Hopewell would have to pay for the government sites, to be included as part of the development area, after the developer's traffic improvement measures were accepted.

Hopewell cut the development density of the Hopewell Centre II, formerly known as Mega Tower, from 93 storeys to 55 last year. The gross floor area was reduced by about 38 per cent and the number of hotel rooms halved to 1,024.

A spokesman for Hopewell Holdings said yesterday the Transport Department accepted the traffic impact assessment, including its recommended road improvement measures, because the development density had been significantly scaled down. "The department accepted that the suggested measures can accommodate the extra 500 vehicles per hour induced by the project," the spokesman said.

He said Hopewell would consult the Wan Chai District Council next week on the improvement measures. Among the measures, the road widening works near Ruttonjee Hospital will require land acquisition, which will be subject to a two-month public consultation.

"Negotiation of land premium will start if no objection is raised against the road widening works," the spokesman said.

Measures to alleviate the increased traffic include widening parts of Kennedy Road, Queen's Road East, and Spring Garden Lane. The construction work is expected to start in 2010 and be completed in 2014.

Copyright © 2009 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All right reserved

I am getting more and more interested to see this TIA.
But a negative growth rate was accepted by the TD?? What the heck are those people doing in TD??
With the Lei Tung Street redevelopment across the street, there is no way the background traffic would go down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert challenges Hopewell traffic data
Olga Wong and Anita Lam
Updated on Jan 15, 2009
South China Morning Post

Hopewell Holdings might have underestimated the traffic impact of its new Hopewell Centre II hotel, according to a traffic expert who has challenged the Transport Department's decision to approve the impact assessment.

Hopewell Holdings announced its traffic impact assessment had been approved by the Transport Department, clearing the last departmental hurdle to the building of the 55-storey convention hotel in Wan Chai.

But Hung Wing-tat of Polytechnic University said the assessment report was full of questions.

The report assessed the impact on four junctions and said traffic along Queen's Road East had been declining by around 1 per cent a year.

"It is impossible for Wan Chai to experience a negative growth rate of traffic when the Transport Department predicted a 4 to 8 per cent growth in the whole territory," Professor Hung said.

Instead of adopting the department's model to project growth rates, the report used a statistical technique known as regression analysis, which Professor Hung said was conducted in an unscientific way.

Professor Hung also said the assessment had missed a junction at Cotton Tree Drive and Kennedy Road and he questioned the hotels used for comparison.

"The new hotel is supposed to be a top one, so why wasn't it compared with the major five-star hotels in the neighbourhood?" he said.

"The department should not have accepted a report of such quality."

A Hopewell Holdings spokesman said the traffic consultant company hired was well established and the report was based on the standard requirements for a traffic impact assessment.

Copyright © 2009 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All right reserved

Critics attack Hopewell project

Monday, January 19, 2009
The Standard

Opponents of the Hopewell Center II development in Wan Chai claim a report put together by the developer on how much traffic the project would generate is riddled with factual errors and underestimations.

Opposition to the Traffic Impact Assessment report which Hopewell has submitted to the government comes from interest groups, residents and political parties, who see it as their last line of defense against the controversial project which has already been scaled back amid public pressure.

"I do not have any background in statistics, and I represent the average reader when I went through the full report," the Civic Party's Tanya Chan Suk-chong told a residents' meeting yesterday. "But even I could pick out details that had serious problems and factual errors."

The Polytechnic University's Associate Professor of the Civil and Structural Engineering Department Hung Wing-tat was equally dismissive.

"There is a gross underestimation of traffic growth in their report," Hung said.

"Linear extrapolation was used to predict growth, but the data points are miles and miles apart. Also, a high class hotel is planned for the new development - and it is generally accepted that higher-status structures will have more through-traffic.

"Yet the developer did not really take this into account when predicting traffic trip rates," Hung said.

Hopewell could not be reached for comment. ADELE WONG

Hopewell II 'blocks mansion'
19 January 2009
South China Morning Post

The road improvement plan for the Wan Chai development Hopewell Centre II is under challenge from a mansion owner, who said a proposed flyover would block the mansion's entrance and render his approved redevelopment plan unviable.

The mansion's owner, Henry Ngan, whose father founded China Motor Bus, said at a residents' meeting yesterday that the flyover would clash with his redevelopment plan, which was approved by the Town Planning Board and Buildings Department in 2004. His grade-three historic building would be torn down to make way for two 15-storey residential buildings.

Dr Ngan said the flyover landing would be too close to the entrance for fire engines to get into a planned emergency access area, and merging traffic would create a black spot.

"Our plan came before his [Sir Gordon Wu of Hopewell Holdings]. A developer should not take away our right to develop when he comes late."

Dr Ngan's consultant architect, Vincent Ng Wing-shun, said he was concerned the Fire Services Department would not endorse such a blocked emergency access. "It would be unfair if the government allows one plan to defeat an approved one."

A Hopewell spokesman said a "halt" sign would be added at the flyover landing so vehicles leaving the hotel would stop and give priority to cars accessing Dr Ngan's site. He said the mansion's entrance was not located where the land lease required.

Yadda yadda.

As my old maths teacher used to say, "GET ON WITH IT!"

Opinion : Why project's amendments were cleared
21 January 2009
South China Morning Post

Why project's amendments were cleared

I refer to Roger Emmerton's letter ("Department must provide full disclosure on Hopewell Centre II", December 26).

I would like to provide the following information on this development.

The Town Planning Board had considered an inquiry from the developer on whether its proposed amendments to the 1994 approved scheme would fall within Class A amendments under the relevant board guidelines.

The board noted that the proposed amendments would not have any adverse planning impacts and consequences, but would bring about improvements when compared with the approved scheme.

After considering the rationale behind the Class A amendments and given the legal advice obtained, the board agreed that the proposed changes were Class A amendments.

Since the paper contained legal advice, the subject was included as a confidential item in the board's agenda.

The board issued a press statement on December 15, the next working day after the meeting.

As explained in the statement, the proposed amendments involve no change in the proposed use, but a reduction in development scale.

The building footprint, disposition and building form are basically the same.

These are all broad development parameters.

Details of the development including any bonus plot ratio that may be granted would be considered under the Buildings Ordinance, like all other development proposals.

The proposed open space provision including a public park of 2,030 square metres and a private park of 3,850 square metres, which are to be open to public use at reasonable hours, will be maintained.

This is in line with the planning intention to encourage redevelopment of the area into commercial uses with provision of public open space and other supporting facilities.

Regarding the road improvement works, the detailed design is subject to consideration by the relevant government departments to ensure the construction impact will comply with environmental legislation and with traffic regulations.

Wan Chai District Council will be consulted on the traffic impact assessment and the proposed roadworks before gazetting under the Roads Ordinance.

Regarding Mr Emmerton's concerns on the impact on trees, the 1994 approval was subject to an approval condition on submission and implementation of a landscaping plan and a tree felling report. Such a requirement would also be incorporated in the land exchange conditions.

I hope these points have answered the concerns expressed by Mr Emmerton.

Brenda Au, for director of planning

合和二期交評報告獲批 運輸署被指「打倒昨日的我」
21 January 2009
信報

灣仔區議會昨日通過，支持合和二期之道路改善工程刊憲上馬，合和二期有望於二○一四年如期落成。然而，「合和二期交通影響評估報告」不單被指錯漏百出，而且所採用推算交通增長率、俗稱ＡＡＤＴ的數據，原來早在四年前已被運輸處以「不準確」為理由，否決合和當日交通增長率的推算。運輸署的決定自相矛盾，被學者和灣仔居民質疑其審核準則，並質疑運輸署打倒昨日之我是否要偏袒發展商利益。

持雙重審核標準

合和實業聯席董事總經理胡文新昨天出席灣仔區議會會議後表示，是次按照合法程序推動合和二期項目，終得以落實，感到很高興，下一步將與政府按程序進行換地安排。被問及「合和二期交通影響評估報告」錯漏百出，以及合和拒絕向政府交出QRE PLAZA是否涉利益輸送，胡文新則不作回應。至於合和在九四年獲批的發展計劃，是否已失效等問題，合和發言人至截稿前亦未有作出回應。

翻查二○○四年九月二十一日灣仔區議會的會議紀錄，當日合和引用運輸署一套俗稱ＡＡＤＴ的數據（Annual Average Daily Traffic，全年每日平均車流量 ），向區議會解釋Mega Tower（合和二期前身）對區內交通的影響，所引用之數據不獲接納。

會議紀錄顯示，時任運輸署高級工程師陳錦信在會上表明：「ＡＡＤＴ是全年計算的每日平均車流量，但在大型發展項目設計方面，運輸署的關注點在於繁忙時段的路面負荷，而ＡＡＤＴ並不能有效反映這方面的情況，加上堅尼地道上有多所學校，引用ＡＡＤＴ數據來評估大型發展項目的交通影響，並不可信。」　　不過，是次合和提交的交通影響評估報告，同樣採用ＡＡＤＴ數據，去推算區內四條路線的交通增長率，卻順利獲運輸署接納。本報就此向運輸署查詢，至截稿前未獲回覆。

理大土木及結構工程學系副教授熊永達認為，運輸署缺乏一套清晰的評估指引和審核準則，容許發展商委託顧問公司「各施各法」進行交通評估，而運輸署審核報告時亦持雙重標準，有欠公允。

合和除了採用ＡＡＤＴ評估交通流量外，更未有採用較精確的「區內車流模型」（Base District Traffic Model）去評估合和二期對區內交通的影響。熊永達指出，「區內車流模型」是由運輸署研發，按照區內的人口、車流、道路網及公共交通配套等資料，計算區內的交通容量和交通負荷。

發展商只需輸入相關數據，例如擬發展物業項目的單位數量、所產生的車流量等，該模型便能自動計算出擬發展之物業項目對區內交通造成的額外負荷，從而採取合適措施改善交通問題。

不過，合和沒採用「區內車流模型」，反而採用Junction Capacity Assessment的計算方式，即派人實地收集交通交界範團的車流量，去推算區內四個交通交界範圍於二○一六年的交通容量，該計算方式只適合評估單幢式樓宇物業對附近一帶交通之影響，而運輸署竟然又接納，熊永達坦言感到大惑不解。

熊永達稱，隨著社區發展及大型私人發展項目陸續推出，他促請運輸署訂立指引，要求發展商就大型發展項目進行交通影響評估，必須採用「區內車流模型」，作為統一的評估方法，避免再出現類似合和二期的爭議。

當局強調做法合理

運輸署助理署長盧劍聰昨在灣仔區議會會議上表示，運輸署有一套完善的既定機制去審核私人發展商所提交的交通影響評估報告，《運署規劃及設計手冊》亦列出相關的技術標準及要求。

運輸署發言人強調，署方認為「合和二期交通影響評估報告」的做法、所採用的數據及推算合理，而其建議的道路改善工程能亦有效地紓解合和二期所帶來之交通影響；署方在審核報告時，亦有參考內部數據■採訪．撰文：陸倩盈、雲翔

Wellcome to the jungle !

居民組織促修訂工程
21 January 2009
信報

灣仔區議會昨以十三票贊成、一票反對，通過支持合和二期之交通改善工程刊憲上馬。保護堅尼地道小組發言人何婉屏表明拒絕收貨，正與居民商討進一步行動，要求合和修訂其交通改善工程。

運輸署連同合和實業率領的交通顧問小組，昨日向灣仔區議會介紹「合和二期交通影響評估報告」，會上多名議員批評，報告所採用的數據、計算方式及研究範圍並不全面，低估了合和二期落成後所產生之車流量，又質疑合和斥資四億元的道路改善工程，未能紓緩區內交通擠塞的問題，將來或出現類似銅鑼灣時代廣場附近一帶般交通擠塞。

合和上周公布「合和二期交通影響評估報告」，連日來遭議員、學者及灣仔居民抨擊，運輸署及交通顧問小組昨日顯然有備而來，對各項指控逐一反擊（見表）。合和執行董事楊鑑賢亦親身上陣，首次開腔解釋合和二期落成後，二期範圍內將提供五重交通繞道，包括的士站及旅遊巴上落客站等，可同時疏導二百架車輛，有別於現時銅鑼灣時代廣場只能同時疏導三十二架車輛，強調合和二期不會成為時代廣場翻版。

雖然今次會議，也有支持合和二期的居民到場支持，但由於旁聽居民數目眾多，部分支持者最後未能進入會場。而在會議期間，在場旁聽的保護堅尼地道小組多名成員則拉起橫額，抗議道路改善工程影響區內的道路設計，阻礙消防車駛進位於堅尼地道的屋苑，一名成員屢次打斷運輸署官員發言，被驅趕離場，令現場氣氛一度緊張■

I like the initial renders. Nice grass...

合和二期的社會意義
30 January 2009
信報

在這百年一遇的金融海嘯陰霾下，牛年人人都希望牛氣沖散這經濟陰霾，重見新天。際此，發展局如牛一樣衝刺，無論公家和私營工程，都盡全力催促上馬，製造就業，促進經濟。爭論三十年的合和二期在發展局的大力支持下上馬，具象徵意義。

由於發展局局長把自己和合和二期的發展綁在一起，對合和二期有不同意見者，將被視為反政府。我得首先聲明，反政府並不是我的立場。我對於商人能在法律容許下賺取利益，認為是對其才智應有的回報，並沒有反感。我的立場很簡單，作為大學的教師，有責任維護和提升學術和專業水平；作為一個公共知識分子，有責任維護社會公義。對合和二期，我所期望的是政府應保護發展商合法的權益，同時應確保發展商不會得到優待或壓抑，造成不公。

一致成疑

我希望藉討論合和二期的交通影響評估（ＴＩＡ）報告，探討其社會意義，特別是有沒有造成不公。政府要求發展商進行ＴＩＡ，以確保不會因一己的私利，過分影響公眾利益，即合和二期不令區內交通造成不可接受的擠塞。ＴＩＡ的進行步驟很簡單，首先評估目前的交通狀況，找出剩餘容量。再推算合和二期落成後，一般交通增長及合和二期產生的交通量，然後評估這些未來交通量對道路擠塞造成的影響。

為求公平和一致性，在評審ＴＩＡ報告時，運輸署要確保推算交通增長量和評估道路擠塞的方法合理（Reasonable），與要求其他發展商一樣，讓人們看出政府行為的一致性（Consistency）。

讓市民看到政府的行為合理而一致，不偏不倚，是建立人民對政府信任的基石。每個發展項目不同，包括項目的規模、性質、影響範圍和落成時間都有差異，進行ＴＩＡ時，必然有不盡相同的設定，運輸署的評審尺度不可能一成不變，這是完全合理和可以理解。但若項目規模的影響範圍和時限都相差不遠，運輸署要運用酌情權（Disgration）時，可改變的空間就小得多了。

與合和二期差不多的發展規模、同一地域和時期發展的有「市建局」的利東街項目（H15），比較這兩份ＴＩＡ報告，可以觀察運輸署行為的合理性和一致性。這兩項目相隔一條皇后大道東，遙遙相對，都是高密度發展，面積相若，同樣審視二○一六年的交通狀況。兩份ＴＩＡ報告的設定有相當大差異，但同樣得到運輸署的核准，這就不能不令人懷疑運輸署的酌情權是否太大？是否合理和一致？我用相處關鍵性的差異說明問題：一是由現在到二○一六年交通增長量的設定，二是評估交通影響的方法。

合和二期設定附近交通年增長率為百分之零點五，而H15則約為百分之一點五，相差三倍。同是皇后大道東，同是二○一六年的交通預測，運輸署接受這麼大的設定差異，合理嗎？行為一致嗎？

H15是根據運輸署的既定指引而設，而合和二期則用自行建議的方法，即線性回歸法。若以往的交通量真的回歸在一條線上，回歸法是正確的。但合和提供的數據顯示，過往的交通趨勢，根本就呈現直線，線性回歸法在學術上根本不能接受。

專業淪落

合和二期選取某些最關鍵的幾個路口，以傳統的方程式運算評估路口的擠塞程度。H15則採用運輸署提供的電腦模擬，全面評估交通對所有附近路口和道路的影響。採用選取個別路口進行評估的方法，涉及主觀判斷和運用酌情權。運輸署為每區發展一個電腦模擬，原意是減少運用酌情權的爭端，保持政府行為的一致性。但容許合和二期採用選取路口法，是否合理和一致？

我再重申無意反對合和二期上馬。但我反對以所謂非常時期，以非常手段、甚至不合理、不合法繞過常規的做法。最終將會造成社會不公，專業淪落，損害社會整體利益。

香港理工大學土木及結構工程系副教授

運輸署回應合和二期交通評估方法
7 February 2009
信報

要促進香港的可持續發展，一套全面及有效率的整體運輸規劃是必要的。為配合整體運輸規劃，如有私人發展項目申請改變土地用途而令交通流量有所增加時，私人發展商必須提交交通影響評估報告以評估有關發展項目可能對區內交通造成的影響，並建議紓緩措施。

運輸署有一套完善的既定機制去審核私人發展商所提交的交通影響評估報告。審核交通影響評估報告所採用的技術標準及要求，均詳列於本署公開的《運輸規劃及設計手冊》內。

基本上，交通影響評估報告是按照既定的方法及指引進行，而運輸署會小心及詳細地審核報告的做法、數據、估計、推算及建議是否合理。運輸署一直沿用這套機制審核全港所有的擬議項目，向來行之有效。

運輸署不會完全依賴私人發展商或其顧問所提交的數據來作出評估。運輸署會根據本署所掌握的交通數據和資料來作出客觀分析和專業審核，並對私人發展商提交的資料進行質檢，從而決定私人發展商所提交的數據是否合理。倘運輸署認為有關分析和數據並不合理，會要求私人發展商作出澄清，以及提交補充資料和數據。

就社會人士對合和二期的交通影響評估方法及交通增長量設定的關注，運輸署欲作以下的闡述：

交通影響評估的方法

市建局H15利東街項目的交通影響評估是採用交通電腦模型來估計將來的交通流量，而合和二期是使用年增長率（基於近年的交通數據）的方法。這兩種都是用來估計將來的交通流量的專業及實用方法，若個案較為簡單，並不涉及道路基建有重大改變，可考慮採用年增長率的方法。運輸署會參考該署的《運輸規劃及設計手冊》第一冊第三章附件內的指引，並根據個別情況考慮交通顧問公司所建議的方法。

基於合和二期的評估範圍並不複雜（主要集中於兩個位於皇后大道東的關鍵路口），加上該區的發展和道路網已趨成熟及發展項目有詳細的規劃，所以運輸署接納採用年增長率的方法。至於H15項目，主要不同之處是它涉及附近一些道路的建議更改（包括改變行車方向、封閉/新增道路），故採用交通電腦模型來估計將來的交通流量會較為合適。

交通增長量的設定

在估計將來的交通流量時，合和二期報告採用「線性回歸法」來確定其近年年增長率的最佳趨勢直線。運輸署認為這比一般採用簡單平均值的方法更能準確地反映近年的交通平均年增長率。在估計將來的交通流量方面，H15項目是採用交通電腦模型，而不是年增長率的方法，故沒有相對的年增長率數值。兩個評估報告（即合和二期與H15）就皇后大道東在二○一六年的交通流量所作的估計，大致上均相若。

運輸署在審核「合和二期交通影響評估報告」時，有參考內部數據，例如路口流量。

運輸署接納該報告的原因是認為該報告的做法、所採用的數據及推算合理，而其建議的道路改善工程，亦有效地紓解擬議項目所帶來的交通影響。

運輸署一再重申，本署會不偏不倚，嚴守專業操守，以客觀的態度審核私人發展商所提交的交通影響評估報告，以平衡社會及整體公眾的利益。

運輸署署理助理署長鄭鴻亮

^^ If it weren't Lei Tung Street redevelopment, the TD response and methodology would have had been made total sense. The TIA was done in the industry's normal transportation modeling procedure. But it isn't convincing at all when Lei Tung Street is coming in town at the same time. The Hopewell's TIA seems to ignore the Lei Tung Street redevelopment, and projected the volumes based on an isolated development.

Prof. Hung has his point. TD should have had forced Hopewell's consultant to adopt the Lei Tung Street model and further analyze the development's impact on Queen's Road East and adjacent street networks. It's a disappointing decision, and unprofessional, by the TD.

But, it's good to see this kind of arguments and approval process is raising to strengthen the traffic/transportation engineers industry in HK in these coming years.

Public split over Hopewell's Wan Chai rezoning plan
Government backs developer over open-space U-turn
12 February 2009
South China Morning Post

Public opinion is split over Hopewell Holding's proposal to turn its open space in Wan Chai into commercial use.

The proposal has drawn more than 4,500 public submissions to the Town Planning Board from residents and concern groups, with 2,676 supporting and 1,907 objecting.

A 25-storey commercial building named QRE Plaza has already been built on Hopewell's site on 196-206 Queen's Road East. The government said rezoning the former open space site for commercial use would legitimise the new building.

It also said the change would not reduce the open space provision in Wan Chai, as the Hopewell Centre II development will provide an additional 5,880 square-metre open space in future.

But opponents are angered that the developer itself suggested a land exchange, surrendering the site as open space as part of its proposal of building the 93-storey Mega Tower in 1994, according to a Town Planning Board paper released yesterday.

But the suggestion was not incorporated as a condition when the board approved the Mega Tower plan, although the government later zoned the site as open space to reflect the plan's intention.

Hopewell later decided to give up its open space proposal after its amended plan of breaking the tower into two high-rises was rejected in 2004. Instead, it built the QRE Plaza on the site according to an old plan approved in 1981.

While Hopewell stressed it has no obligation to provide the open space, critics said it was the government's bureaucracy that allowed the developer to exploit the system and not to deliver the space.

Civic Party vice-chairman Albert Lai Kwong-tak said the case demonstrated the flaws in the town-planning system, with land and planning issues decided by separate bodies. "The land exchange policy, operated with plenty of discretion, defeats the whole purpose of town planning. Lands officials can override town planners' decisions."

According to the board's paper released yesterday, although the board endorsed Hopewell's open space proposal in 1994 and advised it to negotiate with the Lands Department, the department rejected the proposal for a land exchange. Mr Lai said it was unclear why the government now decided not to insist on the open-space zoning as it did in the 1990s. "There is a lack of accountability."

Meanwhile, opponents say in their submissions that the elimination of the open-space zoning would represent a public loss. "Unless the developer would surrender another piece of land for open-space development, the subject site should not be rezoned. The board cannot be treated as a rubber stamp," they said.

A spokeswoman for Hopewell Holdings said the company had strong justifications for the application and had already submitted them to the board.

The board will discuss the case tomorrow.

Hopewell wins zoning approval
14 February 2009
South China Morning Post

The government has rezoned a planned open space in Queen's Road East into commercial use, giving Hopewell Holdings the approval it sought for a 25-storey building it has already built on the site.

The Town Planning Board said it granted the developer's application because the site faced heavy traffic and was not suited for an open space.

Critics said the decision was unacceptable.

Hopewell had proposed the open space in 1994 as part of its plans for the former Mega Tower project. The suggestion was not incorporated into the plan when the government approved the project, though it later zoned the site as an open space.

The Mega Tower project was later amended, and Hopewell pressed ahead with a plan approved in the 1980s and built the QRE Plaza, which was completed last year.

The developer then applied for a rezoning - from open space to commercial use - to legitimise the existing land use, which the Planning Department supported yesterday.

District planning officer Brenda Au Kit-ying noted that the Lands Department had opposed the open space proposal more than 10 years ago.

"The site was zoned as open space in 1994 because Wan Chai did not have enough open space at that time," she said. "Now we have ample open space if we take into account that in the Lee Tung Street redevelopment and new reclamation area in Wan Chai North."

Keren Seddon, a planning consultant representing Hopewell, said keeping the old zoning was not a practical solution. "The site is exposed to noise and air pollution from heavy traffic loads, it is not an ideal location for open space," she said.

About 2,000 out of more than 4,000 public submissions to the board oppose the rezoning and want the developer to compensate for the loss of this open space by providing another. But Hopewell said it had already proposed to revitalise Nam Koo Terrace, which will have green space, as part of the Hopewell Centre II development formerly known as Mega Tower.

Lawmaker Tanya Chan, who found the board's decision unacceptable, said there was still a shortage of open space in Wan Chai and that compensation should be sought.

合和二期交評—小心應用統計方法
20 February 2009
信報

近來，理工大學土木及結構工程系熊永達先生、運輸署和ＬＬＡ顧問公司討論有關合和二期交通評估的計算方法，文章於一月三十日、二月七日和二月十二日在本報發表。由於當中討論涉及統計方法的應用，與筆者的專業有關，因此本人亦趁此機會，談談我的看法，指出統計方法在應用時一些需要留意的地方，希望帶出正確使用統計方法的訊息，能夠對有關當局和有興趣人士，在探討相關問題時，有所幫助。

熊永達先生在他的文章中批評：「顧問公司採用的直線回歸法，找出增長趨勢，是學術上不能接受的」，這很有道理。

熊文討論皇后大道東兩個監察站記錄到的交通流量，本人選取其中一站的交通流量散布圖，用以說明顧問公司統計分析的一些問題。

不接受線性回歸法

一、顧問公司所採用的線性回歸法 （linear regression，圖中直線），背後的其中一個假定是，數據之間在統計上是相互獨立的 （mutually independent），可是，這個假設在時間序列 （time series） 中，包括皇后大道東交通流量數據，絕大部分情況下是不正確的。

二、要分析時間序列，如果數據不平穩（non-stationary），我們先要把它轉化成平穩（stationary），再作進一步分析、探討。皇后大道東一二三三站的交通流量看來很像是分成兩組的—一九九九年至二○○三年和二○○四年至二○○七年，當中第一組的流量都比第二組的為高。另外，圖中亦清楚顯示，整體上流量是下降的。所以，明顯地該地點的交通流量序列不是平穩的。

綜觀上述兩點，顧問公司所採用的線性回歸法，在統計學上是不能接受的。

難找出解決方法

三、對統計學有一定認識的人都應該知道，如果樣本數目太少，統計分析出來的結果，很有可能跟實際情況差距很大，顧問公司的樣本數目是九個（一九九九年至二○○七年），在統計學上肯定是一個小樣本。採取這樣的一個小樣本，要準確估計皇后大道東二○一六年的交通流量，就有點兒像預測該年的恆生指數一樣，難度非常之高，而顧問公司所得出來的交通流量年增長率，亦存在著很大的不確定性。採取九個過去數據去預測九年後（二○○七年至二○一六年）的情況，這麼困難的事，非我輩人士所能做到。

解決方法—相當不容易！這麼一個令人頭痛兼頭痕的問題，不是本人一個小小的腦袋所能想通和承受。運輸及房屋局之下和顧問公司當中，能人眾多，查找不足、探討優良的解決方法的責任，則非他們莫屬了。

合和二期發展計劃，爭論已久，本人絕對無意反對合和二期上馬。可是，一些人雖然口中說出了堂而皇之的理由，心裏卻盤算怎樣得到最大的自身利益，反對項目上馬，而這項目亦在不斷爭論之中，拖拖拉拉，擾擾攘攘近三十年，虛耗了不少社會資源，令人難過。

最後，我在此引用熊永達先生文章內的兩段說話作為總結：「我再重申無意反對合和二期上馬。但我反對以所謂非常時期，以非常手段，甚至不合理、不合法繞過常規的做法。最終將會造成社會不公，專業淪落，損害社會整體利益」。還有，「政府運用酌情權，必須有所依據，讓民眾看得清楚，否則，我們賴以自豪的公平和公義社會基石，就逐步被挖空。長官們，請三思。」　　這兩段話亦說中了我心裏的一些想法。

香港大學統計及精算學系講座教授

I guess we should be able to see its completion by 2046.

Opinion : Retrospective rezoning of QRE Plaza has set a dangerous precedent
22 February 2009
South China Morning Post

With the retrospective rezoning of QRE Plaza, in Wan Chai, from open space to commercial, the Hong Kong town planning process has crossed the Rubicon and ushered in a whole new era of over- development. Developers using this decision as a template can now build on green-zoned sites, and then apply for rezoning on any spurious claim.

In the case of QRE Plaza the developer's argument, supported by our ever supine Planning Department, was there was noise and air pollution from traffic, hence the site was not ideal for open space. Surely it is because of these very conditions that it is appropriate to have some empty spaces on busy streets in order to mitigate the canyon wall effect? If all our open spaces were subjected to similar criteria most would fail to be ideal locations.

District planning officer Brenda Au Kit-ying claims that the open space planned for Lee Tung Street will provide ample open space for the district. Anybody sitting in the concrete space planned for that development will be bombarded by the exhaust of the hundreds of cars driving in and out of the extensive parking facilities included in the plan.

No mention has been made of the abuse of the zoning plans and why the Planning, Buildings, Transport and other departments involved in the approval process for the QRE Plaza all disregarded the zoning status of the site.

The administration in its desire to support Hopewell Holdings has now opened a can of worms, the repercussions of which we can only imagine. It is obvious by the number of incursions into our country parks recently and the cutting of trees and other pre-development works undertaken that developers have been anticipating the outcome of the town planning decision on QRE. Now with the collusion of indigenous villagers, residents and taxpayers in other countries who return to Hong Kong only to keep their right of abode and to join in some traditional knees-up, developers will be busy digging out any old document that can be used as a basis for developing green sites.

Our government will be only too happy to back their claims. Outline zoning plans have been rendered redundant.

Candy Tam, Wan Chai

Opinion : Plaza rezoning merits closer examination
31 March 2009
South China Morning Post

The 1,907 individuals and organisations who objected to the retrospective rezoning of QRE Plaza in Wan Chai from open space to commercial were most surprised to receive a message from the Town Planning Board on March 19 justifying its decision to approve the rezoning.

The fact that the board felt there was a need to explain the reasons why the application site was not rezoned earlier indicates that there is something suspect about the proceedings.

The board says it is its established practice to rezone a site to reflect an approved use until the completion of the approved scheme in order to ensure that the development would be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and the approval condition(s), if any, would be complied with. This explanation appears to be obtuse and to indicate that the site was only zoned open space in order to cap the height and introduce a pedestrian footbridge.

Are we therefore to accept that all sites zoned open space are merely temporary zonings to ensure that approval conditions are fulfilled?

Surely the function of the outlying zoning plan is to dictate the overall design plan for a district that controls density, height and provisions for at least the minimum open space per resident as required by law?

Moreover this waffle does not legitimise the fact that Hopewell Holdings was allowed to erect a 25-storey commercial building on a site zoned open space without a single government department involved in the approval process raising an objection.

When Legco winds up the Leung Chin-man inquiry involving possible favours to another developer, New World, it must immediately set up a panel to investigate the QRE affair.

The rezoning was very conveniently approved just days before the announcement that the developer had pulled out of the nearby Urban Renewal Authority Lee Tung ("Wedding Card") Street project. One of the reasons given for the rezoning was that there is sufficient open space in the area when the planned open space provision of not less than 3,000 square metres at that project is factored in. The Wedding Card Street project could now be 10 years down the line and can undergo radical changes.

So delay no more. An open and transparent town planning process is essential.

Candy Tam, Wan Chai

合和二期道路工程 耗資四億明年動工
10 April 2009
星島日報

合和中心二期（前稱Mega Tower）的道路改善工程昨日正式刊憲，工程費高達四億元，當局會就工程展開為期兩個月的諮詢，預計可於明年動工，二○一四年完成，以紓緩現時交通已呈飽和的皇后大道東和堅尼地道交匯處。

合和發言人指，政府刊憲道路改善工程，標誌着合和二期進入另一階段，而合和亦樂意繼續與政府及地區溝通，更會按法定程序繼續推展合和二期工程項目，預計明年可展開道路改善工程。

紓緩皇后大道東交通

耗資四億元的合和二期道路改善工程，包括擴闊堅尼地道及皇后大道東現有行車道和行人路的部分路段、在船街日後的公眾休憩用地鋪設四點五米闊的行人通道、在皇后大道東與堅尼地道交界處興建有蓋行人天橋等。

按早前合和提出的交通影響評估報告指出，現時皇后大道東和堅尼地道交匯處的交通流量已經飽和，預計到二○一六年若沒有道路改善工程，該處屆時會嚴重擠塞；而在道路改善工程後，估計屆時上午繁忙時間每小時交通流量上限將可上升三成八。記者 周嘉莉

合和二期批建55層
24 April 2009
東方日報

【東方日報專訊】籌劃逾三十年的灣仔合和中心二期商業發展（前稱Mega Tower），發展商於去年底與政府達成共識後，近月終獲屋宇署批出新發展方案的建築圖則，將建一幢五十五層高酒店及商業物業，總樓面逾一百零九萬方呎。另受發展商減慢發展步伐影響，今年首季獲批動工的私宅僅二百九十九個，按年勁減九成四，並創有數據公布以來的季度新低。

恒地屯門建13幢屋

屋宇署上月批出二十八份圖則，以合和中心二期發展規模最大，項目於九四年已獲批建九十三層高摩天樓，後因反對聲音不絕而削減規模，剛批出的圖則與政府在去年底達成的共識相若，酒店樓面約六十萬七千三百方呎，寫字樓樓面約四十八萬七千方呎。

港島區亦有多個重建項目獲批圖則，包括銅鑼灣開平道新寧閣、灣仔軒尼詩道二十四至三十四號、半山堅道九十二至九十四號、灣仔街市重建、以及薄扶林道九十二Ａ、九十二Ｂ及九十二Ｃ號項目；其中希慎（00014）的新寧閣准建一幢四十三層高寫字樓及酒店物業，樓面約二十萬七千方呎。

另恒地（00012）屯門藍地福亨村項目，獲批建十三幢三層高洋房。而期內共有十三個項目獲批施工同意書，涉及住宅樓面約八十一萬三千方呎，包括長實（00001）元朗洪水橋洋房發展。

住宅動工量創新低

利嘉閣周滿傑說，首季住宅動工量為屋宇署公布數據以來按季新低，料年內數字仍偏低。美聯劉嘉輝指出，首季私宅落成量僅近一千六百五十伙，按季跌逾七成。

Opinion : Another historic part of city will disappear
3 June 2009
South China Morning Post

I write to endorse the well-expressed opinions of Dare Koslow ("What will be the legacy of HK's development-blinded planners", May 29).

In Wan Chai, the secretary for transport has gazetted roadworks to support the [Hopewell Centre II], formerly known as the Mega Tower [before it was scaled down]. These include the extinguishing of a large section of historic Ship Street. It was one of the first streets to have been established on Hong Kong Island. Its long, wide granite staircase gives a direct right of way from the original shoreline up to Nam Koo Terrace (a grade one heritage building).

The neighbouring Hau Fung Lane will also vanish, thereby eliminating one of best the examples of treed granite retaining walls and granite staircases still in Hong Kong. These are unique to Hong Kong, so it is disappointing that our government views their demise as progress. There is no traffic justification for this vandalism.

It seems that the developer covets this public area for increasing its project and our government is ever willing to sacrifice heritage, open space and the environment to accommodate and to generate revenue. While this mentality pervades the upper reaches of government there is little chance that Hong Kong can retain its diverse and unique character and blandness beckons.

Roger Emmerton, Wan Chai

灣仔居民遊行籲訂可持續發展規劃
11 May 2009
信報

發展局正就市區重建策略展開檢討，近三十名灣仔區居民昨天發起遊行，要求當局制定一套可持續發展的市區重建政策，包括由政府委託獨立顧問進行交通影響評估報告、推出重建項目前須向受影響及周邊社群逐戶發信諮詢、妥善處理建築廢料等。 保護堅尼地道小組、廈門街街坊關注組及肇輝台關注組昨日組織近三十名灣仔區居民，於區內遊行並召開居民大會。居民主要不滿當局草率通過利東街重建項目和合和二期項目，擔心將令區內交通不勝負荷，損害居民利益。政府上月就合和二期的道路改善工程刊憲並展開兩個月諮詢，保護堅尼地道小組發言人何婉屏呼籲居民在諮詢期內提交意見，阻止工程上馬。 出席居民大會的民主黨立法會議員甘乃威認為，近年一系列重建項目引起居民強烈不滿，主要由於事前缺乏全面的諮詢，令發展淪為項目規劃，而非社區規劃。 甘乃威以合和二期為例指出，發展商委託顧問公司進行交通影響評估報告，結果集中探討合和二期周邊的交通流量，而忽略對整個灣仔區的交通影響，損害居民利整，造成規劃失當。 他建議，日後應改為政府委託獨立顧問公司，由整個社區的角度出發，評估交通影響，並促請當局改變「先破壞、後重建」的發展方針，日後推出任何發展或重建項目前須向受影響及周邊社群逐戶發信諮詢■

合和30年後灣仔再出手
16 June 2009

【明報專訊】曾經是本港「地產五虎將」的合和實業（0054），自1980年代之後專注投資基建及物業收租之後，在本港已有20、30年沒有投資過住宅物業。

為區內大地主

今次突然「重出江湖」，伙拍信置（0083）合組財團入標灣仔俗稱「喜帖街」的利東街重建項目，顯然是因為合和在區內眾多項目，包括大型項目合和中心二期，反應集團希望鞏固灣仔區的龐大物業版圖。

童年時在灣仔長大的合和實業主席胡應湘，對該區的感情濃厚，在區內發迹的他，在70年末期崛起，先後收購灣仔舊式樓宇進行重建，發展合和中心及胡忠大廈。此外，合和於灣仔的版圖，亦包括皇后大道東的商廈項目QRE Plaza以及服務式住宅Garden East，兩者於最近兩年開始營業，同屬單幢式物業，規模並不算大。

不過，去年旗下的大型酒店項目合和中心二期（Mega Tower），經過與城規會拉鋸近30年之後，終於落實興建一幢55層高酒店及商業物業，總樓面逾109萬方呎，並於2016年完工。

若利東街項目若投標成功，相信將令集團在灣仔區的版圖大幅擴大，合和灣仔最大業主的地位，將更加鞏固。

合和擴版圖 鞏固灣仔王國
24 June 2009
香港經濟日報

　　灣仔乃合和發跡地，旗艦物業合和中心在80年落成後，多年來擴張版圖，令集團王國儼如「小灣仔」。

　　胡應湘05年時曾說︰「我在灣仔區發達，合和中心又成了代表作，灣仔舊區重建我也有責任。」可見胡應湘對灣仔區有著難以言喻的濃厚感情，重建該區一直是他的心願。

　　胡應湘自小一家13口居於灣仔，對該區充滿感情，他於30年前一手策劃興建合和中心，大廈於1980年落成，更以樓高66層成為當時全港最高的大廈；其後又在附近收地興建胡忠大廈，以紀念其父親，樓高38層的胡忠大廈於1991年落成。

　　近年皇后大道東的銀座式商場QRE Plaza，以及服務式住宅Garden East先後落成，兩項目規模並不算大，僅屬單幢式物業。

　　該集團近年在灣仔區的發展出現突破，拉鋸近30年之合和中心二期重建項目（前稱Mega Tower），與政府的磋商終在去年破冰，落實興建一幢55層高酒店及商業物業，總樓面逾109萬平方呎。現再下一城取得利東街重建發展權，集團進一步擴大灣仔區版圖，令其於區內的地位更加鞏固。

Hopewell to pour HK$12b into projects
5 February 2010
SCMP

Hopewell Holdings and its highway construction unit plan to invest nearly HK$12 billion in the next six years in Hong Kong and Guangdong to develop residential and commercial projects and build expressways.

By 2016, Hopewell will invest HK$9.2 billion to develop properties in Wan Chai, said Thomas Jefferson Wu, the managing director of Hopewell and its subsidiary, Hopewell Highway Infrastructure (HHI).

About HK$4.2 billion will go towards its Lee Tung Street project and HK$5 billion to Hopewell Centre II.

The Lee Tung Street project is Hopewell's 50-50 joint venture with Sino Land. Residential and commercial properties are planned for the site, with a gross floor area of 835,000 square feet, scheduled to be completed in 2015. The initial plan for Hopewell Centre II is a conference hotel with 1,024 rooms, with a targeted completion date of 2016.

In Guangdong, Hopewell plans to invest at least one billion yuan (HK$1.14 billion) in the Liede commercial property project in Guangzhou, scheduled to be completed in the second half of 2015.

HHI, 70.27 per cent owned by Hopewell, will invest 1.38 billion yuan by 2012 in phases two and three of the Western Delta Route toll expressway in the Pearl River Delta. Phase 2 will connect the cities of Shunde and Zhongshan, while Phase 3 will connect Zhongshan with Zhuhai.

"Even after that (investing in the expressway), HHI will still have cash," said Wu, the son of Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung, the chairman of Hopewell and HHI. "Perhaps there are other transport opportunities in China we might consider investing in. Both companies have cash on hand and very strong balance sheets for future investment."

At the end of last year, Hopewell and HHI had a cash balance of HK$3.5 billion and HK$2.7 billion, respectively, as well as available bank credit facilities of HK$16.5 billion and HK$3.6 billion.

The global financial crisis affected Hong Kong's property rental market and manufacturing in Guangdong, which in turn reduced traffic on HHI's highways in Guangdong, Wu said. Although rental income in Hong Kong softened last year, it will probably strengthen this year, and truck traffic on Guangdong's highways recovered strongly in the second half of last year.

Hopewell's net profit jumped 171 per cent to HK$931 million for the six months to December, while earnings before income and tax (ebit) soared 97 per cent to HK$1.26 billion. The near-doubling of ebit was partly due to the fair-value gain of Hopewell's investment property under construction, Broadwood Twelve.

Opinion : Residents furious at government for allowing Wan Chai plunder
11 February 2010
South China Morning Post

It is obvious that Gordon Wu Ying-sheung ("Tycoon likens 'uprising' call to red guards", January 29) is suffering from a severe dose of sour grapes.

His comment that some "people just turn to the streets because they want to demand something, just like the red guards", is a thinly-veiled potshot at the good citizens of Wan Chai who have been taking to the streets to protest the unacceptable levels of collusion between our administration and tycoon property developers like Sir Gordon.

Three projects have been the focus of much attention within the local community, all of it negative:

The Hopewell Holdings mega tower [Hopewell Centre II] project;

The Urban Renewal Authority's involvement with Hopewell and Sino Land to redevelop Lee Tung Street, also known as Wedding Card Street; and

The destruction of historic Wan Chai Market by the URA and Chinese Estates.

On Sunday, January 24, we had to take to the streets again. This time it was to protest a plan to, among other measures, cut down most of the trees and remove the hillside buffer that provides a sound barrier in front of Ruttonjee Hospital as part of a road-widening scheme without which the increased traffic to be generated by the proposed mega tower will bring traffic on Queen's Road East to a standstill.

The Transport Department is intent on pushing through a deeply flawed traffic impact assessment to remove obstacles to the mega tower.

The anomalies are too numerous to describe through these columns.

Far from being post-1980s protesters, residents from all age groups and backgrounds have no other option than to give up their precious free time that should be spent with family and friends to take to the streets when reasonable objections through the proper channels have been ignored and distorted.

We take great exception to being described as "red guards".

As for the contributions the functional constituencies have made to the development of our city, we have to ask what direction would Hong Kong have taken without their pervasive influence?

Their main objective is to retain the status quo whereby a select few are guaranteed obscene returns while the majority is destined to work long hours for low pay to keep these people on the rich lists.

This is not the fair and equitable society that Hong Kong people now aspire to and we are prepared to fight for this goal.

Candy Tam, Wan Chai

LCQ10: Hopewell Centre II development
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Government Press Release

Following is a question by the Hon Audrey Eu Yuet-mee and a written reply by the Secretary for the Environment, Mr Edward Yau, (in the absence of Secretary for Development)in the Legislative Council today (May 5):

Question:

It has been learnt that the Hopewell Centre II development project (the development) in Wan Chai includes the provision of a pedestrian walkway along the flyover connecting Kennedy Road to the development and a tunnel, and the developer may deduct the costs of the works from the land premium payable. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) apart from connecting Kennedy Road to the hotel included in the development, what other places the aforesaid pedestrian walkway will connect;

(b) whether the pedestrian walkway is a private street;

(c) of the details of the public's right of access to the pedestrian walkway and tunnel (including their opening hours and restrictions on the right of access to that road section);

(d) whether it has assessed the amount of land premium to be foregone by the Government which is attributable to the pedestrian walkway and tunnel; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(e) what approach the authorities will take to regulate the construction, use and management of the pedestrian walkway and tunnel?

Reply:

President,

The Hopewell Centre II development was approved by the Town Planning Board (TPB) in 1994 subject to conditions which include the widening of and improvement to Kennedy Road, including the provision of a new flyover and tunnel access to the hotel site as necessitated by the proposed development, and the design of pedestrian access to the proposed development, as proposed by the Applicant, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning or the TPB. These works will help to cope with the generated right-turn traffic on Kennedy Road into and out of the existing Hopewell Centre and the future Hopewell Centre II, thereby alleviating the traffic impact of the proposed development on Kennedy Road and its vicinity. Besides, the pedestrian access along the flyover can enhance the safety of pedestrians crossing Kennedy Road and mitigate the traffic impact brought by the development.

My reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

(a) As mentioned above, the proposed flyover cum pedestrian access and tunnel access will connect the Hopewell Centre II to Kennedy Road.

(b) and (c) The flyover cum pedestrian access and the tunnel access are located on Government land and will be open for public use 24 hours a day. They are therefore not regarded as private roads.

(d) The Hopewell Centre II development has not yet reached the premium assessment stage. The land exchange arrangements will only be finalised by the Lands Department (Lands D) upon authorisation of the road improvement works (RIW) by the relevant authorities and the submission of detailed information by the developer.

According to the existing land exchange arrangements, applications for land exchange will be subject to payment of full market value premium by the developer. The land premium is the difference between the value of the land owned by the developer before and after the land exchange. In assessing the land value, the professional valuers of Lands D will normally deduct the "development costs" to be borne by the developer as well as a reasonable profit margin from the "estimated sale value" of the completed development. The "estimated sale value" after land exchange generally refers to the sale value of the completed development on the land. As regards the Hopewell Centre II development, in estimating its sale value, the professional valuers will also take into account that the development will benefit from the RIW which form part and parcel of the development. Since the development costs (including the costs of the RIW) are to be borne by the developer, the professional valuers will assess the costs of the RIW and include them in the "development costs" which will then be deducted from the "estimated sale value".

(e) The developer's responsibility of maintaining and managing the facilities and ensuring the public's access to them will be clearly stipulated in the conditions of land exchange. The relevant authorities will monitor to ensure that the use and operation of the proposed flyover cum pedestrian access and tunnel access (including management and maintenance) on Kennedy Road are in compliance with the conditions of land exchange.

LCQ15: Planning for open space and green belt in the community
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Government Press Release
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201003/10/P201003100181.htm

Following is a question by the Hon Kam Nai-wai and a written reply by the Secretary for Development, Mrs Carrie Lam, in the Legislative Council today (March 10):

Question:

It has been learnt that in recent years quite a number of members of the public are very concerned about the planning for open space and green belt in the community. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective total areas which have been zoned as open space and green belt under the Outline Zoning Plans at present, broken down by District Council district, and among them, the respective areas of land which have still not been developed according to such land use, as well as the development timetable for such areas of land; if there is no timetable, of the reasons for that;

(b) according to the standards stipulated in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, of the respective total shortfalls in the areas of open space and green belt in each District Council district at present; and

(c) of the total areas of private land which have been zoned as open space and green belt; whether the Government plans to recover such areas of land for development as open space and green belt; if so, of the timetables; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

President,

The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) suggests that a minimum of 20 hectares (ha) of open space (including 10 ha of local open space and 10 ha of district open space) should be provided for every 100,000 persons. Green belt areas are the existing natural environment and are not formed through development. The purpose of designating appropriate natural environment in built-up areas/urban fringe areas as green belt is to protect the environment from encroachment by urban development. The HKPSG has not suggested the area of green belt that should be provided in Hong Kong. However, it is worth mentioning that out of the 1,100 square kilometres of area of Hong Kong, 46% of the land are country parks and special areas which are under protection and for the enjoyment of the public.

The reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(a)&(c) Annex 1 lists out the total area zoned as open space on the Outline Zoning Plans by District Council district, and the area of private land thereof. The total area of land zoned as open space will be greater than the area suggested in accordance with the calculation under the HKPSG. The reason is that the former includes slope areas which may not be suitable for development, as well as open space required to be developed to cope with long-term population growth. The departments concerned will plan the timetable for implementing open space to cope with population growth in various districts, and will consider whether it is necessary to resume private land for such purpose.

In response to part (a) of the question on development timetable, taking the Central and Western District as an example (see Annex 2), the area of existing (developed) open space is 44 ha. The area of open space planned but awaiting development/currently under development is 13 ha, of which only 0.3 ha is private land. The relevant Government departments will implement open space on public land (including the Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park under works) according to population growth and subject to the availability of public resources. The development timetable of the small area of open space on private land depends on the development of relevant private projects. The Government has no plan for the time being to develop this small area of open space through land resumption. Annex 1 also lists out the total area of green belt in various districts and the area of private land thereof.

(b) Annex 2 sets out information on open space that the HKPSG suggests to provide for various districts, as well as information on existing and planned open space. The figure on existing open space includes the "Open Space" on Outline Zoning Plans which have already been implemented according to the planned use, as asked about in part (a) of the question. As shown from the information, out of the 18 districts in the territory, currently only the Wan Chai and Central and Western Districts are short of open space which should have been provided. However, if we count in the open space to be built, the total area of open space of the two districts will exceed the area suggested under the HKPSG. In this regard, we have, based on the planned population of the Central and Western and Wan Chai Districts, planned and reserved sufficient land for open space in the two districts (including Central Reclamation Phase III, the waterfront open space in Wan Chai North, Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park Phase II and a park under the Hopewell Centre II Hotel Development project).

Authorisation of road scheme in Wan Chai gazetted
Friday, July 30, 2010
Government Press Release

The Government published a notice in the Gazette today (July 30) on proposed road works at Kennedy Road, Queen's Road East and Ship Street in Wan Chai that aim to cope with the future Hopewell Centre II development at proposed Inland Lot No. 8715. The works were authorised by the Chief Executive in Council.

The works include:

i) widening and realignment of sections of the existing carriageways and footpaths at Kennedy Road and Queen's Road East;

ii) construction of an underpass, and a flyover with associated footpath, lift and staircases connecting Kennedy Road with the proposed lot;

iii) provision of a walkway of 4.5 metres in width within the future public open space at Ship Street, staircases leading to Kennedy Road, and associated road widening and improvement works;

iv) provision of a footpath along the northern boundary of the proposed lot;

v) construction of a covered footbridge with associated lifts and staircases at the junction of Queen's Road East and Kennedy Road;

vi) permanent or temporary closure of an existing vehicular ingress, and sections of the existing carriageways and footpaths; and

vii) ancillary works including landscaping, drainage, slope and utilities works.