daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments

General Urban Developments Discussions of projects shorter than 100m/300ft. Also, please post all other threads not specified in other Development News subforums here.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 21st, 2006, 07:48 AM   #61
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

Kai Tak 'ideal for cruise terminal'
3 January 2006
South China Morning Post

The former Kai Tak airport is an ideal venue for a cruise terminal, the Travel Industry Council says.

It is "the perfect choice with all the facilities, including the long runway that can easily be turned into a pier", executive chairman Joseph Tung Yao-chung said.

He said the industry believed a second terminal ought to be built as soon as possible. "We have been talking about the building of a cruise terminal, waiting for it for so long now," Mr Tung said.

Six developers submitted proposals on Saturday to the government to build a cruise terminal at various locations. Wharf (Holdings) operates Hong Kong's only cruise terminal at Tsim Sha Tsui.

Mr Tung said Hong Kong was missing out on significant revenue because it had limited facilities for cruise ships staying more than one or two days. "The cruises sailing in and out of Hong Kong are only here for a one- or two-day trip. Occasionally, there might be one or two big cruises coming here for a longer stay and the ships have to be anchored at the Kwai Chung container terminal.

"We are losing a large amount of tourism revenue. These travellers are big spenders and they will stay here for a week instead of one or two days."

A terminal at Kai Tak would also revive Kowloon City, where businesses were hit hard by the loss of the airport.

The government said that if no other suitable location was proposed, it would go ahead with its original plan for a terminal at the old airport site.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 26th, 2006, 03:56 AM   #62
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

Groups buzz Legco over `last piece of waterfront'

A bevy of special interest groups representing civic, environmental, economic and athletic causes filled the main chamber of the Legislative Council Wednesday to air a variety of grievances on the latest redevelopment proposals for the site of the former Kai Tak airport.

Jonathan Cheng
Hong Kong Standard
Thursday, January 26, 2006

A bevy of special interest groups representing civic, environmental, economic and athletic causes filled the main chamber of the Legislative Council Wednesday to air a variety of grievances on the latest redevelopment proposals for the site of the former Kai Tak airport.

Speaking before a handful of administration officials and legislators, the groups put forth a number of visions for the 133-hectare parcel of vacant land.

Some called it a chance to build on Chief Executive Donald Tsang's vision for a "sports city" on the site to attract world-class competitions and nurture local athletic talent, while others called for the protection of the rights of those who live on boats, of the light aviation industry, and of vessel traders.

If the extended afternoon session often felt unfocused and convoluted, it reflected the multiplicity of concerns represented by the 39 groups in attendance and the contentiousness of the redevelopment plans for the site, which one group called "the one last remaining piece of waterfront in Hong Kong."

The Tourism Board was the most prominent of several groups that portrayed Kai Tak as the city's last chance to develop a major cruise hub before Singapore, or Shanghai, beat Hong Kong to the punch.

"A cruise terminal would be a shot in the arm for the tourism industry," said board representative Aliana Ho.

She said the cruise business is one of the tourism industry's fastest-growing areas, and called on the government to take advantage of the city's location and international image. "Hong Kong has a good geographic location, but there are no berthing spaces. Other cities are all updating their infrastructure, and we'll lose our leading place if we don't grasp this opportunity."

But other groups called cruise boats a "major pollutant" and urged a more environmentally friendly approach.

The Rowing Association called for a world-class regatta center and annual international boat races.

Representatives for football, rugby and Thai boxing associations voiced support for a massive indoor stadium with a retractable roof.

The session also included ambitious schemes like a massive futuristic spire to rival Shanghai's.

"Everyone knows we're the Pearl of the Orient, so we ought to build a Dragon Pearl Pagoda to be a landmark of Hong Kong," said Lam Chi-keung of the City Planning Concern Group, who unveiled a miniature model of a spire to a chamber of suppressed chuckles.

He said the tower - which would be capped with a massive crystal ball flashing neon-lit phrases like "Welcome to Hong Kong" and "Kung Hei Fat Choy" - would "build our brand and represent the essence of Hong Kong culture."

The government hopes to come up with a preliminary outline development plan for the Kai Tak site by mid-2006.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2006, 05:41 AM   #63
raymond_tung88
Registered User
 
raymond_tung88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,273
Likes (Received): 14

I'd definately go for the cruise terminal as well as the sports complex. I hope they'll mix those two ideas together to create a multi-use complex that would draw a lot of tourists.

The Dragon Pearl Pagoda is just dumb... if people wanna see a pagoda they could go 2 one of the thousands of temples...
raymond_tung88 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2006, 07:35 PM   #64
Rachmaninov
Registered User
 
Rachmaninov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Posts: 3,188
Likes (Received): 24

Sports? I doubt that... the stadiums are not that frequently used anyway
Rachmaninov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 26th, 2006, 09:51 PM   #65
godblessbotox
la is pritty
 
godblessbotox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Dieguana
Posts: 2,297
Likes (Received): 27

it would be a shame to spoile such prime real estate with an empty building that could hold a few thousand people every month or two. as well as the cruse ship port... why would that have to be right downtown? Are there not other parts further away like near the airport? its not like there is not sufficent transportation between the two to get some business downtown
godblessbotox no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2006, 02:45 AM   #66
vincent
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,380
Likes (Received): 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachmaninov
Sports? I doubt that... the stadiums are not that frequently used anyway
with the retractable roof, they can host a lot more events than just sports. Convention/exhibition, concerts, etc
vincent no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2006, 01:58 AM   #67
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

The Clean Up of Kai Tak: A Lesson for Hong Kong
Hong Kong Lawyer looks at the controversy surrounding the clean up of the old Kai Tak airport site and the legal issues it raises regarding the problem of contaminated land
http://www.hk-lawyer.com/1998-12/Dec98-50.htm



For an overcrowded city like Hong Kong, the plan seemed ideal. To build a brand new 'City within a City' replete with housing developments, schools, playgrounds, a huge municipal park, and a river running right through its centre. This was the plan for the old airport site at Kai Tak, the development of which was slotted to begin shortly after the new airport at Chek Lap Kok was opened. But much of the Government's plan has come under fire following revelations that for decades toxic materials have been seeping into the ground, rendering major portions of the land upon which the former airport sat exceedingly hazardous.

During those years when Kai Tak operated as one of the busiest - and, ironically, safest - airports in the world, workers were not only busy helping planes land and take-off, they were also busy pouring aviation fuel, petrol, paint, anti-freeze and a whole assortment of other toxic wastes onto the ground. Over time these wastes worked their way underground, contaminating the soil underneath. There is also a concern that cyanide may have been deposited on the site from an old, previously decommissioned cyanide destruction plant. And as if that were not bad enough, the Government has acknowledged that several of the underground pipes used to carry fuel to the planes had suffered major leaks, some of them lasting years. The Oil Companies Tank Farm that covered an area in excess of 11,500 square metres and included part of the runway and the parking area used by the jets, is believed to have dumped hundreds of tonnes of flammable, toxic fuel into the ground. The nullah that lies adjacent to Kai Tak has been found to contain heavily contaminated mud as the result of leeching from the airport site.

Studies have revealed the presence of high levels of carcinogenic hydrocarbons, including benzene, scattered throughout the site. Benzene in particular is known to increase the risk of cancer (it has been associated with an increased risk for leukaemia and aplastic anaemia) even where exposure amounts are fairly low. Benzene is also a mutagenic; that is, it causes inheritable genetic changes which can affect the next generation, the next after that, and so on.

The consultancy firm hired by the Government to conduct what turned out to be a two-year environmental study of the area has made recommendations as to how the site should be cleaned up. They have proposed the use of a sort of vacuum system, the idea being to place a series of pumps into the ground that would literally suck-up the toxic methane vapours. In areas where the contamination is more entrenched, they intend to actually pump the soil straight to the surface through tubes. This way, the toxic vapours could be 'captured' and directed straight into an on-site incinerator.

The plan put forth by the Government's consultants has been controversial. Chief among its critics is the consortium of major oil companies (who ran the Oil Companies Tank Farm) that are responsible for much of the mess in the first place. They argue that the clean up method proposed by the consultants is not likely to work given the highly compressed nature of the ground at Kai Tak. The better plan they believe is to 'land-farm' the area, which would involve digging out all of the contaminated soil and putting it through a treatment process that would remove the pollutants. Yet this plan has its critics as well who argue that the process of land farming poses too high of a risk to the workers involved and the people living in the adjacent areas.

This past October the Government began a pilot program to test which method or combination of methods it will use in what is believed will ultimately be a multi-million dollar clean up effort. The Tank Farm companies have offered to contribute financially toward the effort though they insist that they will do so only if the method chosen is one that will actually work.

Whichever method is ultimately employed, the controversy will undoubtedly continue. For the problems at Kai Tak have only served to highlight what is a glaring lack of legislative guidance in this most vital area of environmental protection.

This lack of guidance means that there remains unanswered a whole myriad of questions that go to the very heart of the problem. Specifically, how should land contamination be defined? What risk level is acceptable and what level of human and environmental protection is reasonably achievable? What method of clean up criteria should be used? Should the level of land remediation be related to future land use? Who should be liable for the costs involved in the clean up effort?

Legislator Christine Loh, Chair of the Citizens Party and a strong advocate for the environment, believes 'the Kai Tak redevelopment has exposed an environmental problem that Hong Kong has hitherto never addressed - that of contaminated land. The lack of any legislative or administrative guidelines on how to deal with this issue', she argues, ' raises many serious questions.' Moreover, she adds that 'with many other urban sites earmarked for redevelopment, including many old industrial sites, some answers will be needed quickly.'

The US Model

The now infamous Love Canal was the first waste disposal case to draw US (and indeed international) attention to the issue of land decontamination. The history of Love Canal goes back to 1896 when William Love dug a canal nearly 2 miles long hoping to connect the upper and lower Niagara River in Upstate New York. His grand scheme failed and eventually the canal was abandoned having never been put to use. In 1942, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation purchased the land and for the next decade, disposed approximately 19,000 cubic yards of hazardous waste into the empty canal, which it then covered with a layer of clay and sold to the local government (for the nominal fee of $1). The transfer of the land to the government was on the express condition that the company would not be held liable for any future problems. The land was thereafter used to build a series of new housing schemes and a school.

The first inklings of the disaster came in the mid 1970's when homeowners began to complain about 'mysterious' substances that were beginning to leak through their underground basement structures. In 1977 a series of tests revealed that the mysterious substances were in fact toxic chemicals that had leaked into the surrounding soil and into the groundwater. In 1978, following medical tests conducted on the local population, the State of New York declared a health emergency. By 1980, the United States Federal Government had offered to evacuate everyone living in the affected area.

The disaster at Love Canal led directly to the passage by US lawmakers of the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), or Superfund as it is more commonly known. The legislation established the mechanism for the clean up of contaminated sites and charges the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with identifying the polluters and making them pay for the clean up. A site is identified as contaminated when the release of a hazardous substance(s) poses a serious threat to human health, welfare, or the environment.

The polluters are referred to as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and can include a site's past or present owners or operators; the people who created the waste in the first place; and anyone who transported waste to the site. PRPs are subject to strict, joint and several liability (where one party may be sued for all the damage caused by many) so that each PRP can be held liable for the entire cost of clean up at a site. Furthermore, damaged parties need not prove that a PRP was negligent, merely that the PRP contributed to the problem in some way. This means that PRPs are liable for the costs of a clean up for dumping that may have been legal when it occurred. If a PRP cannot be identified, or have gone out of business, the federal government (ie the taxpayer) bears the cost of the clean up, but the basic principle remains that 'the polluter pays'.

The US Superfund scheme has been the subject of much criticism. Because CERCLA establishes a strict liability system (with joint and several liability), those charged under the scheme with responsibility for clean up have often tied up the courts for years with suits against other PRPs who, they argue, should share the burden of the clean up costs. As a consequence, it is estimated that only half of the Superfund's money has actually gone toward the clean up of contaminated sites, the rest going toward the support of a huge bureaucracy and the legal costs associated with joint, several, and retrospective liability.

It was also argued that issues of potential liability were preventing banks from providing loans and developers from taking on sites that were only moderately contaminated, especially in large urban areas in need of redevelopment. As a reaction to these criticisms, the US Government in 1997 passed the Land Recycling Act (the Brownfields Act) which provides government funding assistance and tax benefits to those developers willing to purchase moderately contaminated sites, and the Asset Conservation, Lender Liability and Deposit Insurance Act of 1996 which clarifies when lenders will be responsible for certain contaminated properties (ie banks will be liable for the clean up of properties they hold as collateral only if they 'participate in the management' of the business that operates on the property).

With respect to the issue of how much remediation is required for a contaminated site, the underlying US philosophy (as is also the case in the Netherlands) is one of multifunctionality or multiple use, ie the land should be restored to a standard suitable for any possible use whether it be industrial, residential, agricultural, etc.

The UK Model

The origins of the UK approach to the issue of land contamination can be traced back to the British Government's white paper 'This Common Inheritance, Britain's Environmental Strategy', published in 1990. In it, the Government explicitly recognised the problem of land contamination and emphasised the importance of bringing this land back into constructive use. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) was a reflection of this view and it called for local authorities to compile registers of land that were or might be contaminated.

The issue of local registers quickly became controversial as banks and insurance companies became increasingly reluctant to take on potential lender liability as had been the case of their US counterparts under the Superfund scheme prior to the 1996 amendments. As a result, the registers were abandoned and the search for a more pragmatic, business friendly approach resulted in the Environment Act 1995 (EA 1995).

While the EPA 1990 remains the principal UK Act regulating environmental pollution, EA 1995 for the first time provided a specific definition as to what constituted contaminated land as well who would be potentially liable for its clean up. Contaminated land is defined as whether significant harm is being caused, or whether there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused, or pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused by reason of substances in, on or under the land.

EA 1995 also established the Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. While local authorities remain the key regulators, with a duty to inspect and identify contaminated land and serve remediation notices if appropriate, the new environmental agencies are charged with responsibility for 'special sites', ie those that pose a particularly difficult remediation problem.

While the scheme operates on the 'polluter pays' principle, it does not follow the CERCLA scheme in that it is not based upon principles of strict and joint and several liability. The Act contains provisions for identifying the polluting party or parties, so called 'appropriate persons', and then serving upon them a remediation notice. The appropriate person is defined as a person or persons who 'caused or knowingly permitted' the contamination. Where the polluter cannot be found, the appropriate person will be deemed to be 'the owner or occupier for the time being.'

The extent of any required remediation of contaminated land is governed by the principle of fitness or suitability for use. Unlike the US approach, the UK requires only that contaminated land should be restored according to the planned usage. Thus for example land that is intended for industrial use requires less remediation than would land intended for agricultural use.

Conclusion: Issues for Hong Kong

According to Ian Cocking, partner at Simmons & Simmons and Vice Chair of the Hong Kong Environmental Law Association, 'the issue of cleaning up the contaminated Kai Tak site highlights a significant gap in Hong Kong's environmental legislation.' He argues that 'although the much publicised Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499), which came into effect in April, may impose some control on the manner in which any decontamination is carried out, it does not directly address the allocation of liability - present and/or future - for the clean up and its costs.' Moreover, it seems clear that older environmental legislation, such as the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap 358), offer no real assistance as their clean up provisions have in fact never been used. And while Kai Tak is the first major land contamination case (though by no means the first example of contaminated land) most experts believe that it is only the tip of the iceberg as the pressure for urban redevelopment projects increase.

In the meantime, without a legal definition as to what constitutes contaminated land, or any record or register of where it may exist, or indeed any history of how the issue should be dealt with, companies are left to guess where they might stand in terms of any future liability for contamination that they may be creating or contributing to now. As international experience has shown, central to any policy will be a realistic assessment of who should shoulder the burden of clean up and to what extent the 'polluter pays' principle will be enforced in Hong Kong. However, one thing is fairly certain. If the Government (ie the taxpayer) ends up shouldering the entire cost for the clean up of Kai Tak, companies could be left with the impression that they are free to pollute at will without consequence, financial or otherwise.

Finally, with no definitive guidance as to how much remediation is necessary to restore a contaminated site, nor a clear indication of where responsibility for remediation will lie, current and future owners or users of such land (as well as those providing financial backing) may very well be reluctant to take on a property that might prove unfit for certain uses (or any use) a decade or so down the line. When the Love Canal was topped off with clay, we can assume that no one expected toxic chemicals to seep through the soil and into family homes. What Hong Kong needs to ask is how do we make sure that residents of the new 'city within a city' do not suffer the very same fate and how will we provide for those who might very well be sitting on a contaminated land time bomb right now?

__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2006, 05:54 AM   #68
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

Site View

__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 12th, 2006, 07:19 AM   #69
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

啟德規劃露雛形 堅持保留起卸區
3月 11日 星期六 05:05



【明報專訊】啟德規劃雛形漸露,規劃署顧問指出,將來佔地328公頃的啟德,將包括體育城、郵輪碼頭、直升機坪和低密度住宅等項目﹔但先前諮詢階段提出的水上中心、鐵路系統和民用機場則被剔除。不過,因經濟發展及勞工局堅持保留觀塘貨物起卸區,令原先計劃的海濱長廊未能在短期內落實。

鐵路系統民用機場剔除

啟德規劃檢討的公眾諮詢分為3階段,第2階段於今年1月結束,規劃署顧問「城市規劃──茂盛(亞洲)聯營」昨向城規會交代結果。規劃署將根據結果草擬初步發展大綱圖,今年中會展開為期兩個月的公眾諮詢,預計年底會修訂有關分區計劃大綱圖。

顧問代表譚小瑩昨於會上指出,體育城和郵輪碼頭由於有政府政策支持,兩項發展均會納入大綱圖,民政事務局正檢討體育城的面積是否需要減少﹔以住宅發展為主的「綠茵都市」、以商業發展為主的「魅力啟德」,及以體育城為主的「體藝之都」3個方案中,公眾大都傾向以體育城發展為主、住宅密度較低的方案。

譚小瑩解釋,由於啟德規劃人口已由最初20多萬人,減至10多萬人,環境運輸及工務局認為,若在啟德城內採用鐵路系統,財政上並不可行,當局會研究其他較適合在啟德城內行走的環保交通工具。她續說,由於現階段仍未研究出清理明渠的方案,該區水質並不適宜水上活動﹔民用飛機則因安全問題,不可與郵輪碼頭共存。

關閉觀塘貨物起卸區恐礙物流

觀塘貨物起卸區屬啟德規劃檢討範圍,按原先建議,該處將變身成環境優美的海濱長廊,遠眺啟德郵輪碼頭,而起卸區的回收工業將遷出觀塘區,海旁將設露天茶座等設施,有利發展旅遊業。但譚小瑩表示,經濟發展及勞工局現階段沒計劃關閉觀塘和茶果嶺公眾貨物起卸區,以免影響物流業,令更多低技術人士失業。

城規會委員何建宗批評,經濟發展及勞工局未配合啟德規劃檢討,保留貨物起卸區會不利優化環境,限制日後的旅遊發展。

身兼香港建築師學會會長的城規會委員林雲峰認為,規劃署落實發展項目後,須盡快進行建築佈置評估,以評估人流、通風、地標設計和樓宇之間的距離對環境和居民的影響。
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 15th, 2006, 02:06 AM   #70
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

Second Kai Tak Forum to discuss comments on Kai Tak Outline Concept Plans
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Government Press Release

The Sub-committee on South East Kowloon Development Review of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (HEC) will hold the "Second Kai Tak Forum" on March 25 to discuss the community's views on the three Outline Concept Plans proposed at the Stage 2 Kai Tak Planning Review.

The "Second Kai Tak Forum" aims to enhance transparency in the processing of public comments received in the Stage 2 Public Participation, which was held from November, 2005 to January, 2006.

The project consultants and representatives of Government bureaus/departments will respond to the comments and proposals received from the public during Stage 2 Public Participation and answer questions in the forum. The public will have an opportunity to discuss the initial ideas for the project to help in the preparation of the Preliminary Outline Development Plan.

The Chairman of the HEC Sub-committee of South East Kowloon Development Review, Dr Chan Wai-kwan, will convene the forum. He is supported by a panel of sub-committee members.

The forum will start at 9am at the Civil Service Training & Development Institute Auditorium (Room 501), North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point.

Site visits to Kai Tak will be held on Saturday (March 18) to enable members of the public to familiarise themselves with the development opportunities and constraints of Kai Tak. Free shuttle buses will be arranged to take the participants to the site from the public transport interchange in Telford Plaza Phase 2 (MTR Kowloon Bay Station, Exit A). The three departure times are 10.30am, 2pm and 4pm. Each bus tour will take about one and a half hours.

Due to limited seating capacity, pre-registration for these two events is required. For registration and detailed information, please visit the websites: http://www.harbourfront.org.hk or http://www.pland.gov.hk. For enquires, please contact the Secretariat at 2231 4988 or e-mail [email protected].
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2006, 07:37 PM   #71
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

Bigger dock to cash in on cruise craze
Albert Au Yeung
23 March 2006
China Daily - Hong Kong Edition

The government will speed up the development of a new and bigger dock to reap the benefits of the rising trend of travelling in mega-cruise ships, Secretary for Economic Development and Labour Stephen Ip said yesterday.

This was his written reply to legislator Ronny Tong, who had asked what the government was doing to cash in on the world trend of cruise travelling and the increasing use of mega-cruise ships.

According to a study, the number of people vacationing on mega-cruise ships is on the rise, Tong had said, adding that the number of such travellers is estimated to increase by 100 per cent in the next 15 years.

Cities whose ports and terminals could not accommodate mega-cruise ships may lose over half their market share in cruise industry in the next 10 years, he had said.

In his reply to the Legislative Council, Ip conceded that the Ocean Terminal in Tsim Sha Tsui, only one of its kind in Hong Kong, was being used to capacity. Sometimes cruise ships have to berth elsewhere because of conflicting schedules or because they are too big for the terminal, which is good enough only for ships up to 50,000 displacement tonnages. Mega-cruise ships, therefore, have to berth at the Kwai Chung Container Terminal instead. That happened four times last year.

According to the Study on Cruise Terminal Facilities Development in Hong Kong 2004, commissioned by the Tourism Commission, international cruise liners are considering stepping up their operations in Asia, which is considered a major market. Hence, the demand for berthing facilities is expected to grow.

The study also says Hong Kong will require additional berths as soon as possible to satisfy market needs, and one to two more berths beyond 2015 to sustain its development as a regional cruise hub.

To cope with this trend, Ip said, the government will expedite the development of the new cruise terminal facilities by accelerating the timetable of Kai Tak Planning Review.

Since late last year the government has been asking for suggestions for alternative sites for the new cruise terminal, and so far six have been received. The government's inter-departmental working group is carefully examining them.

If any of the suggestions meet the requirements, the site will be put out for competitive bidding after public consultation. Otherwise, the government will proceed at full speed with the development of the new cruise terminal at Kai Tak, Ip said.

In order to make sure mega-cruise ships include Hong Kong in their itineraries and to lure more cruise visitors to the SAR, the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) is co-organizing joint promotions with cruise liners and their designated travel agents on fly-cruise visits to Hong Kong. From time to time, HKTB conducts presentations, seminars and mega events to update cruise travel agents on Hong Kong's new tourism facilities and activities. It also invites senior executives of major cruise liners to Hong Kong on familiarization visits, Ip said.

HKTB attends major international tourism trade shows too. In 2006, Ip said, HKTB will join forces with other destinations for the third consecutive year to market the Asian region to international cruise liners. To enhance cruise visitors' experience upon their arrival, HKTB arranges special meet-and-greet services.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2006, 05:37 AM   #72
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785



__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2006, 06:24 PM   #73
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

Chronology of Events on the Kai Tak (North) and Kai Tak (South) Outline Zoning Plans

http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/harbour/e...i_chrono_e.htm
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 06:16 AM   #74
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

Tycoon hits out at 'fearful' officials
13 April 2006
South China Morning Post

Projects are being delayed and investment held up because officials are afraid to make decisions for fear of being accused of colluding with big business, a property tycoon says.

In today's highly politicised climate, officials would rather do nothing than risk condemnation, New World Development managing director Henry Cheng Kar-shun believes.

He described the attitude of some officials towards developers' applications as, "there can't be any trouble if you don't deal with it".

As a result, important projects such as Kai Tak, West Kowloon and Tamar were being stalled and investors discouraged.

Mr Cheng's criticism comes two weeks after New World and partner Sun Hung Kai Properties abandoned plans to convert flats in the controversial Hunghom Peninsula estate into luxury apartments, saying the premium was too high.

His remarks also come amid pledges by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen of "strong governance" and a determination to press ahead with plans to move government headquarters to Tamar in the face of public opposition.

Mr Cheng also cited what he said was government rigidity in approving commercial makeovers, such as the establishment of restaurants and shops at New World's ferry piers in Central.

"We don't see why government officials take such a long time to approve the plans when there is already a Star Ferry terminal as a showcase example," he said.

The lack of a development plan for the former Kai Tak site eight years after the airport closed was a "waste of resources".

"Many [investors] reckon today's investment climate is souring," he said. "That will hit the entire investment climate."

On property, Mr Cheng said the local market still lacked strong momentum because of the uncertain interest rate outlook.

"Until there is a clear picture on interest rates, homebuyers are likely to be cautious about jumping into the market," he said.

Mr Cheng's comments come amid a weakened primary market. Sales of new projects over the weekend fell to about 30 units, from 57 the weekend before.

Sales in the secondary market also dropped, with the number of transactions in the top 35 housing estates falling 11 per cent to 154, after 173 the previous weekend, according to figures from Midland Realty.

Residential prices rose 2.15 per cent in the first three months of this year, according to the Centa-City Leading Index.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 11:08 AM   #75
jpq21
Registered User
 
jpq21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA/ Hong Kong
Posts: 135
Likes (Received): 0

My dad has an apartment in the Sky Tower complex which is directly adjacent the old airport, looking north. So I hope whatever is decided on is the one which will make its value go up the most (probably the most recreational proposal). Is there going to be a mass transit connection built to the site?
__________________
Skyscrapers are life in Hong Kong,
and work, and relaxation, and tourism, and everything else.
Skyscrapers are Hong Hong.
jpq21 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 03:23 PM   #76
_00_deathscar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5,047
Likes (Received): 217

Why do you want the price to go up?

Unless you want to sell it...
_00_deathscar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 03:30 PM   #77
Monkey
BANNED
 
Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Londinium
Posts: 14,110
Likes (Received): 38

I say build a cruise terminal and a great forest of 400m+ towers!!
Monkey no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 14th, 2006, 06:25 PM   #78
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpq21
My dad has an apartment in the Sky Tower complex which is directly adjacent the old airport, looking north. So I hope whatever is decided on is the one which will make its value go up the most (probably the most recreational proposal). Is there going to be a mass transit connection built to the site?
The plan is to have a stop at the north end of the old airport site in the new Shatin-Central line, but the alignment is not yet set. However, an announcement is expected soon.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2006, 07:40 AM   #79
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785

啟德翻生
新規劃五年完成 集旅遊消費住七萬人

18/04/2006
太陽報







【記者楊瑞貞、余志良報道】拖足八年、規劃一改再改的東南九龍啟德發展終露曙光,並可望於二○一一年完成,而啟德明渠的淨化測試工程亦已展開,且訂於今年暑假展開全面淨化。新的規劃融合環保、旅遊及消費於一身,除有大型運動場館及可停泊兩艘巨型郵輪的碼頭外,跑道兩旁設有海濱長廊,跑道末端更會建造仿似倫敦大橋般的開合式大橋。消息稱,新規劃於今年六月最後諮詢後即展開工程。

可靠消息稱,政府有一個強烈意願是要啟德郵輪碼頭於二○一一年落成,故此,規劃部門正被積極催谷盡快完成啟德規劃,而政府近期已將大部分反對聲音消化,並擬訂一個各方均可接納的新方案,期望今年六月最後諮詢時無阻力,並且立即上馬,如期落成。

政府規劃署歸納多方意見,擬訂了一份新規劃大綱圖,凸顯啟德的人口密度大幅降低,將貼近早前「體藝之都」的規劃,只有近七萬人口。

設郵輪碼頭購物大道
郵輪碼頭將會坐落啟德跑道盡頭面向維港方向,初步預算會有兩個巨型郵輪停泊位,可供超過十五萬噸以上超級郵輪停泊,同時碼頭對開是酒店發展區域,會有大型酒店配合郵輪碼頭發展,推動本港吸納豪華郵輪客消費。

規劃不準備填海,但由於啟德跑道附近水深度不足以停泊巨型郵輪,故擬把最初放在跑道下的石柱重新挖起,令巨型郵輪可以泊岸。同時,為了避免把維港景觀遮擋,泊位也由三個減至兩個。

除郵輪碼頭外,帶動旅遊的設計還有啟德購物大道,即跑道兩旁是低密度住宅區,中間的購物大道連接酒店發展區至啟德機場原停機泊位區,購物大道內設有不同種類商店,無論是郵輪旅客或是本港市民,置身購物大道內可購得國際名牌物品。

新規劃的啟德發展區內有兩個大面積公園,分別為現時跑道頭的國際都會公園,以及在酒店區毗鄰的跑道公園,全部會是林蔭夾道設計,兼盡綠化休閒最大的特色。原跑道兩邊亦會開闢兩條海濱長廊,更配合露天茶座,而海濱長廊由跑道頭伸展至跑道末端,途經所有公園酒店購物大道及碼頭,市民能沿路飽覽維港無敵海景。

開合式大橋連接觀塘
新規劃亦擬引入一些世界聞名的特點景色,考慮在跑道末端建造一條連接觀塘碼頭區域的大橋,該大橋的特色是與倫敦大橋相若,橋身是可以吊起開合,讓橋下的輪船經過。

據悉,規劃中亦在酒店區與低密度住宅區之間預留土地,擬作為地標之用,但現時仍未作最後決定,估計是機場博物館。

為推動本港大型運動,靠近宋王臺公園至舊機場停車場大樓一帶,將建一個多用途運動場,供各類球賽活動及大型體育活動使用,運動場可納四萬五千人,建造費料四十五億元。

連接啟德發展區的交通方面,新鐵路沙田中環線會是主要交通工具,鐵路站會設在發展區外圍,發展區內則會有其他不同特色的交通工具,至於會否建造小型火車則需要再研究。
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2006, 07:42 AM   #80
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,464
Likes (Received): 17785



跑道盡頭興建 樓高10層捱轟
直升機場煞維景

18/04/2006
太陽報


啟德停車場區域將建設為超級運動場,有團體希望能增建鐵路,連接舊城區。 伍永健攝


啟德跑道與九龍灣之間發臭的海水,將透過多種方法改善。 王嘉昌攝




【記者楊瑞貞報道】啟德規劃意見紛紜,現已幾達水到渠成階段,消息稱,如果直升機場的問題解決,其他工程立即可展開。由於直升機場樓高十層,再加上毗鄰的郵輪碼頭,整個維港海岸線均被遮擋,而夾在中間的跑道公園變成「冇景」公園,不少民間團體要求遷移直升機場,「歸還維港公用空間」,若能解決這問題,啟德規劃應再無障礙。

啟德規劃原先擬把直升機場建於郵輪碼頭上蓋,但後來卻改為在跑道末端興建珠三角跨境直升機場。本土文化再造主席林文輝指出,在規劃大綱圖諮詢期間,不少團體均反對在東南九龍興建直升機場,但當局卻顯得非常堅持,原因在於啟德是舊機場,應有部分土地用於飛機升降用途。

林文輝批評當局的想法不合理,又說:「若果要繼續做機場話,咁機場就唔使搬去赤角啦,依家重新規劃啟德土地用途,面對咁多團體反對,都唔明政府當局點解咁堅持,若果要起直升機場,點解唔揀西九起呢?」

不少團體認為維港海景屬於公用空間,市民有權利享用。林文輝指出,直升機場再加上兩個泊位的郵輪碼頭,夾在中間的跑道公園縱是綠化的休憩中心,可謂維港景觀全毀,只能看到觀塘碼頭及起卸區一帶,根本沒有市民會走進這個「冇景公園」,倒頭來公園就變成了直升機場的私人公園,只有乘客可享用,根本不合乎市民共享的原則。

機場博物館無蹤影
對於在啟德區內闢建機場博物館的建議,林文輝批評有關建議現時已不見蹤影,若果舊機場不建機場博物館,卻反而要興建直升機場,當局是本末倒置。另外,有不少團體爭取在區內增建觀光鐵路或觀光電車,以便貫穿跑道公園、購物大道、體育城及宋王臺等地,把新、舊城區連接起來,亦方便市民及旅客到各景點遊覽。

民建聯本周內將向政府提交關於在啟德規劃及周邊發展配套報告,建議把散落各區的政府行政部門集中在東南九龍,除把東南九龍變成行政機構中心外,又要求加快重建九龍城及發展毗鄰三區以帶旺周邊發展。這個建議更被外界質疑是民建聯為「轉」支持添馬艦興建政府總部計劃,而自找下台階。
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
hong kong

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu