hkskyline
February 16th, 2006, 04:41 AM
This green and pleasant land?
16 February 2006
South China Morning Post
Have you ever wondered why Hong Kong doesn't have more grass and trees in its urban open spaces? For that matter, have you wondered why our city uses poor quality materials for pavements? Or is it just bad workmanship?
Let us start with our city parks. Chater Garden and Statue Square provide much needed open space in a very dense business district. There is very little grass, a few mature trees and a bit of water - but a high proportion of concrete.
What if we could redesign them, making them more lush and grassy? Would Hongkongers like them better?
Perhaps we could also rethink how to provide shade for people to enjoy these areas in the summer. Right now, shade is provided by relatively unattractive concrete structures.
There is a nice patch of grass around the Cenotaph - one of the very best patches around. Would it be disrespectful if we could walk on that grass and sit on the steps? I have always found it very tempting, but it's cordoned off. The message is clear - keep off. I wouldn't feel so tempted if there were more patches in Central.
Perhaps I can think about the future of Central in another way. It is the one area in Hong Kong where reclamation is ongoing and the government has promised open space along the waterfront. So, how much of it will be grass? Or will it mainly be concrete with a few trees and flowerpots here and there?
To turn open spaces into lush, green park areas requires a kind of landscaping that Hong Kong does not provide in most of its urban areas. Just have a look at the promenade in front of the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre or in Tsim Sha Tsui.
You might say promenades can be quite pleasant without being park-like. This is certainly true, but the problem in Hong Kong is that promenades are not always a happy experience.
The Tsim Sha Tsui harbourfront is about the best we can manage. The Wan Chai and Sheung Wan waterfronts are diabolical. They are about as ugly as you can make them, even though our city has the most magnificent waterfront views. Apart from that view, almost everything else is awful. The structure, paving, railings, outdoor furniture and overall design are unpleasant.
If you agree, to whom can you complain? Try the district councils. Get your representatives to visit the sites and see what can be done.
My other complaint is about the materials used on many pavements in Hong Kong. Having just been to Barcelona in Spain, I have seen what a city can do. Along the busy Passeig de Gracia, in the city centre, the paving is gorgeous, and no doubt very costly. But it is money well spent.
If we paid attention to our pavements, we would see that many different materials have been used on them. Some are of better quality than others. There has also been a lot of repaving done over the past few years.
Moreover, it is quite obvious that the recent paving workmanship is very poor in some sections. You just know that the areas will have to be repaved soon, so we have not got value for money. Officials may argue that the wear and tear is the result of heavy pedestrian traffic and not the use of cheap materials and poor workmanship. For the parts I often walk along, I can attest they were bad from the start.
I was told concrete was favoured over grass because the upkeep was easier and cheaper. It is time this city rethought the quality of its open space. We don't want cheap and nasty. Surely we can afford something much better. But who is thinking about these sorts of things that can make such a difference to a city?
Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange.
16 February 2006
South China Morning Post
Have you ever wondered why Hong Kong doesn't have more grass and trees in its urban open spaces? For that matter, have you wondered why our city uses poor quality materials for pavements? Or is it just bad workmanship?
Let us start with our city parks. Chater Garden and Statue Square provide much needed open space in a very dense business district. There is very little grass, a few mature trees and a bit of water - but a high proportion of concrete.
What if we could redesign them, making them more lush and grassy? Would Hongkongers like them better?
Perhaps we could also rethink how to provide shade for people to enjoy these areas in the summer. Right now, shade is provided by relatively unattractive concrete structures.
There is a nice patch of grass around the Cenotaph - one of the very best patches around. Would it be disrespectful if we could walk on that grass and sit on the steps? I have always found it very tempting, but it's cordoned off. The message is clear - keep off. I wouldn't feel so tempted if there were more patches in Central.
Perhaps I can think about the future of Central in another way. It is the one area in Hong Kong where reclamation is ongoing and the government has promised open space along the waterfront. So, how much of it will be grass? Or will it mainly be concrete with a few trees and flowerpots here and there?
To turn open spaces into lush, green park areas requires a kind of landscaping that Hong Kong does not provide in most of its urban areas. Just have a look at the promenade in front of the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre or in Tsim Sha Tsui.
You might say promenades can be quite pleasant without being park-like. This is certainly true, but the problem in Hong Kong is that promenades are not always a happy experience.
The Tsim Sha Tsui harbourfront is about the best we can manage. The Wan Chai and Sheung Wan waterfronts are diabolical. They are about as ugly as you can make them, even though our city has the most magnificent waterfront views. Apart from that view, almost everything else is awful. The structure, paving, railings, outdoor furniture and overall design are unpleasant.
If you agree, to whom can you complain? Try the district councils. Get your representatives to visit the sites and see what can be done.
My other complaint is about the materials used on many pavements in Hong Kong. Having just been to Barcelona in Spain, I have seen what a city can do. Along the busy Passeig de Gracia, in the city centre, the paving is gorgeous, and no doubt very costly. But it is money well spent.
If we paid attention to our pavements, we would see that many different materials have been used on them. Some are of better quality than others. There has also been a lot of repaving done over the past few years.
Moreover, it is quite obvious that the recent paving workmanship is very poor in some sections. You just know that the areas will have to be repaved soon, so we have not got value for money. Officials may argue that the wear and tear is the result of heavy pedestrian traffic and not the use of cheap materials and poor workmanship. For the parts I often walk along, I can attest they were bad from the start.
I was told concrete was favoured over grass because the upkeep was easier and cheaper. It is time this city rethought the quality of its open space. We don't want cheap and nasty. Surely we can afford something much better. But who is thinking about these sorts of things that can make such a difference to a city?
Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think-tank Civic Exchange.