HONG KONG | Victoria Harbour Reclamation Development News

[Rachmaninov]

http://img236.exs.cx/img236/893/cimg42297cc.jpg
http://img236.exs.cx/img236/1011/cimg42387cu.jpg
http://img236.exs.cx/img236/8301/cimg42391lb.jpg
http://img236.exs.cx/img236/5462/cimg42421lj.jpg
http://img236.exs.cx/img236/4032/cimg42435to.jpg
http://img236.exs.cx/img236/1781/cimg42447di.jpg
http://img236.exs.cx/img236/5123/cimg42481mv.jpg

Shot today!!

[Patrick Highrise]

mmmmm got some mixed feelings with this. Less and less water.... :( To do really need this new piece of land?
How many buildings are going to be built on this new piece of land? Any info/rederings on that? :)

[th0m]

They reclaim the land, and then they make a huge square in front of two buildings. That's just a shame, if that is the actual plan.

[N/A]

i support the reclamation plan that can relieve the worsening traffic problems in that busy area, it can improve the air quality. not this empty square.

[vvill]

mmmmm got some mixed feelings with this. Less and less water.... :( To do really need this new piece of land?
How many buildings are going to be built on this new piece of land? Any info/rederings on that? :)

in fact there'll be a 6-lane highway running underneath the reclaimed public square. that's the main purpose of the reclamation rather than building a flyover right in front of these buildigns.

[Rachmaninov]

And the Tung Chung line extension stopping at Tamar and HKCEC?

[scorpion]

and a waterfront promenade...

see gehry's swire's proposal--

[Bahraini Spirit]

Looks interesting, but from that render, you'd need to reclaim a lot of land, which am not sure will serve HK greatly.

[rt_0891]

Pretty soon, Victoria Harbour will be no more if it's being reclaimed at this rate.

[FM 2258]

This looks cool but we need to see a better rendering of the area. If the land is gonna be reclaimed something supertall and spectacular should be put on it. Whoever is buying this land must be paying a PREMIUM for it. Isn't there a plot of land that is MORE expensive than the supertall that's actually on it? I'm not sure if it's The Centre or Central Plaza. One of those.

Seeing so much "open space" in the rendering looks wasteful if they're gonna reclaim land for nothing more than a couple buildings and pretty much a large brick parking lot with no cars.

[Rachmaninov]

There will be a long promenade for recreation use ONLY. No supertalls or whatever is going to be built on it. It will make Hong Kong look more green and spacious.

[vincent]

FM 2258, you are talking about Central Plaza. But i am VERY sure that land price in HK are usually higher than the cost of the building(s), especially if you are talking about downtown area. (i believe it is true for most of the other major cities).

that rendering is a VERY VERY early conceptual plan that was issued some 2-3 years ago. The current plan for the future of Tamar site is still undecided.

[scorpion]

also, that rendering is very deceptive in its 'breadth'--the land being reclaimed is perpendicular to that plot of land

in reality, the parcel that is reclaimed land on the rendering is only the section with palms, etc.

again, for an idea of what the reclamation could end up like, check out Rach's thread with Gehry's proposal--look along the central waterfront which connects his proposals

[raymond_tung88]

OKay... I think you guys are getting the wrong idea about this reclamation scheme. Firstly, it was planed to give Hong Kong residents open space is a crowded-enough city. It would feature a harbourfront promenade and a big open square. Underneath would be an extension of the expressway in front of the IFC that would link it under Wan Chai and linked above ground to Causeway Bay. IMO, I support this...

[hkskyline]

The extent of the reclamation has been a very contentious issue and activists won a ruling in the courts to reduce the amount being proposed. As a result, the current reclamation project cannot connect with the Convention Centre. This is probably the last major reclamation project in downtown Hong Kong as there is a lot of opposition from the people on filling up more of the harbour.

The primary purpose of this project is to build an underground highway while providing a continuous waterfront promenade from Central all the way to the typhoon shelter in Causeway Bay.

[vincent]

seems like a lot of people forgot about the subway extension underground too.

[Rachmaninov]

^I mentioned it hehe :P

[hkskyline]

Website : http://www.CRIII-cedd.com

The Central Reclamation Phase III (CRIII) Project is the final phase of planned waterfront reclamation in the Central District of Hong Kong Island.

The CRIII Project has evolved significantly since its original conception over a decade ago. In 1997, while the Project design was nearing completion, the “Protection of the Harbour Ordinance” was enacted. As a result, a critical review of the scope of the project was conducted to formulate a scheme that would achieve the objectives of the Harbour Ordinance and provide sufficient land to serve the long-term needs of Hong Kong.

The resulting scheme, referred to as the “Minimum Reclamation Option”, significantly changed the original reclamation configuration; most notably reducing the reclamation from 32 to 18 hectares, with the majority of the transport infrastructure to be located underground. The Project has incorporated reclamation methods and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce environmental impacts during construction. In the long-term, the ultimate design will provide an unprecedented opportunity to create a waterfront that complements Hong Kong’s famous skyline whilst making the best use of the reclaimed land, for both strategic infrastructure and recreational open spaces, serving the community and tourists alike.

http://www.criii-cedd.com/images/background/cr3_sm.jpg

[raymond_tung88]

Website : http://www.CRIII-cedd.com

The Central Reclamation Phase III (CRIII) Project is the final phase of planned waterfront reclamation in the Central District of Hong Kong Island.

The CRIII Project has evolved significantly since its original conception over a decade ago. In 1997, while the Project design was nearing completion, the “Protection of the Harbour Ordinance” was enacted. As a result, a critical review of the scope of the project was conducted to formulate a scheme that would achieve the objectives of the Harbour Ordinance and provide sufficient land to serve the long-term needs of Hong Kong.

The resulting scheme, referred to as the “Minimum Reclamation Option”, significantly changed the original reclamation configuration; most notably reducing the reclamation from 32 to 18 hectares, with the majority of the transport infrastructure to be located underground. The Project has incorporated reclamation methods and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce environmental impacts during construction. In the long-term, the ultimate design will provide an unprecedented opportunity to create a waterfront that complements Hong Kong’s famous skyline whilst making the best use of the reclaimed land, for both strategic infrastructure and recreational open spaces, serving the community and tourists alike.

http://www.criii-cedd.com/images/background/cr3_sm.jpg

Is the rendering of the reclamation you posted correct? You said earlier that the reclamation will not connect with the Convention Centre, but in the picture it does... Even though its fillling up more space in the harbour, I do support this reclamation (being that it is the LAST plan to reclaim in downtown Hong Kong). Also, weren't they planning on reclaiming in Causeway Bay or has that been cancelled due to activists?

[hkskyline]

The ultimate goal of the Phase 3 reclamation is to finish the job and connect with the Convention Centre. Due to legal challenges, the last part into HKCEC was dropped, and the present project leaves a gap open at that point.

[raymond_tung88]

The ultimate goal of the Phase 3 reclamation is to finish the job and connect with the Convention Centre. Due to legal challenges, the last part into HKCEC was dropped, and the present project leaves a gap open at that point.

That's kinda stupid... what's the point in leaving open that gap? Why didn't they want to connect it?

hkskyline, you still haven't mentioned about the reclamation phase in Causeway Bay? Is that happening or not?

[vincent]

law and regulation is sometimes stupid, you know. Remember the uneducated old women stopped the IPO of the Housing authority fund (whatever it is called). That "gap" is in Wanchai, so the gov can't reclamate it yet.

The court ruling issued last year about Wanchai reclamation does NOT imply that reclamation cannot be done. The gov just have to go back to the town planning board and start with a new proposal again. (basically the whole planning procedure start over again). So it will take some time.

[Open Road]

I saw an amusing article about a year ago with regard to reclamation in the harbor. Some activists came forward and claimed that doing so would destroy the ecosystem in the area. The government brought forward a number of scientists who basically said that there wasn't much of an eco-system to worry about. How much wildlife is there in the harbor area?

[vincent]

to the best of my knowledge, there are really not much ecosystem within the Victoria harbour boundary. (but not other part of sea area in hk)

[N/A]

nimbies are everywhere.:applause:

[hkskyline]

The Causeway Bay reclamation is not going to happen. It was supposed to be part of the HKCEC extension, but that was also attacked by environmentalists and it's off the table. Instead, additional exhibition space will be provided in the new airport facility.

Victoria Harbour has become unusually wavy following the reclamation efforts in the 1990s, affecting navigation and ocean life. This is a major concern for environmentalists arguing that the ecosystem is being affected.

[scorpion]

some would argue those waves are almost all due to the irregular patterning of the harbour due to disjointed abutting segments--

ironically, 'smoothing' out the harbour's boundaries with reclamation could remedy this ailment

[hkskyline]

Well, as long as the 'smoothening' doesn't result in constructive interference. :)

[scorpion]

maybe NIMBYs could offer their services here!~

[hkskyline]

Public input sought on Wan Chai waterfront
Chloe Lai
13 April 2005
South China Morning Post

A series of forums and workshops is being organised to gather public opinion on the future of the Wan Chai waterfront.

They are part of a plan mapped out yesterday by the subcommittee of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee that is studying the Wan Chai area.

"Harbour planning is complex, resolving traffic jams is [only] one of the issues we have to study. We can't just think about traffic and forget how to make the harbour accessible," subcommittee chairman Leung Kong-yui said.

The group is struggling to recover credibility after an embarrassing blunder in January when it issued an information kit listing three options for reclamation on the waterfront and associated roads and development about which members had not been informed.

Mr Leung was the only non-official member aware of the three options.

Members' protests and a public outcry forced the advisory body and the government to withdraw the information kit.

At yesterday's meeting they also decided to publish a new information kit, which will include planning background, constraints and opportunities as well as various old suggestions as references.

The work plan includes meetings with district councils and the Legco panel on planning, lands and works.

"It is important that the district councillors and legislators understand our process," said Mr Leung.

The Wan Chai subcommittee will prepare a questionnaire to draw public input. The public would then be able to voice their opinion on the subcommittee's website.

The subcommittee met Wan Chai District Council yesterday.

It will meet the Eastern and Southern district councils later this month.

A meeting with Central and Western District Council is scheduled for early next month.

[Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm]

Hkskyline - Do you have any renderings of what the Causeway Bay reclamation would have looked like? What all reclamations have been proposed for the Harbour?

[hkskyline]

More information :

Central Phase 3 Reclamation
http://www.etwb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/boards_and_committees/ace/2003ace/ACE%20Paper%2031-2003.pdf

Central reclamation phase III - engineering works
http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/projects/major/hkihae7343cl.htm

http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/projects/major/images/s_7343cl_a.jpg

[hkskyline]

Surveyors urge public to say no to bypass plan
Equalising tunnel charges and imposing road tolls will solve problem, they say
Andy Cheng
7 March 2005
South China Morning Post

Surveyors have entered the widening argument over the Central-Wan Chai bypass, urging the public to say no to the project when they are consulted next month.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) said the government had failed to consider other methods to solve traffic congestion that did not involve reclamation of the harbour.

The government will publish a new information kit about the bypass next month. The move follows an aborted attempt in late January to kick-start the project by outlining three proposals for reclaiming up to 25 hectares of Wan Chai waterfront.

The proposals - released in the name of the Harbour Enhancement Committee - were withdrawn shortly afterwards because of a public outcry over the fact that some committee members had not even seen the plans.

Roger Nissim, chairman of RICS Hong Kong's external affairs and public concerns committee, said equalising tunnel charges and adopting a sophisticated toll system for Central should be done before a bypass was considered.

"We have got a crazy pricing system for our tunnels. The busiest tunnel is the Cross-Harbour Tunnel, which is the cheapest," said Mr Nissim, who is also a project planning manager for Sun Hung Kai Properties.

If equalising the tolls failed to solve congestion, Mr Nissim said an electronic road payment system (ERPS) could be introduced in Central. The system would see road users charged more at peak hours and less on weekends.

Mr Nissim believed an ERPS could solve the congestion problem, contrary to the government's argument that it would not work unless combined with a bypass.

If it came to the worst and a bypass were considered, Mr Nissim said an underwater tunnel was preferred. The roof of that tunnel should be a cycle track and a footpath "so that you and I can walk on the waterfront and enjoy the view".

The bypass was the target of a protest yesterday when a fleet of boats carrying activists sailed along Victoria Harbour.

The Society for the Protection of the Harbour said it would speak directly to the acting chief executive to object to the plans should Tung Chee-hwa resign. The society also called on candidates in the running for Mr Tung's post to promise to protect the harbour.

"A forward-thinking chief executive must have the determination and moral courage to treasure the Earth and protect natural resources, and not just focus on short-term financial gains," said Christine Loh Kung-wai, chairwoman of the society.

[hkskyline]

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

Why the Fuss about Victoria Harbour?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria Harbour and Hong Kong's Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacts of Reclamation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[scorpion]

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

Despite how ironic this particular issue really is--

[spicytimothy]

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WATER QUALITY

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also includes 27 chambers of commerce and business associations.

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

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

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

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

[Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm]

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

[Cheese Mmmmmmmmmmmm]

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

Harbour protection policy goal reaffirmed by Government
Government Press Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rachmaninov]

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

[Skyscrapercitizen]

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

What about a HK Palm... ;)

[spicytimothy]

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

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

[superchan7]

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

[raymond_tung88]

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

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

[bs_lover_boy]

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


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

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

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

[spicytimothy]

Thanks bs_lover_boy...

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

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

[hkskyline]

Fears raised over harbor plan's commercial features

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

Leslie Kwoh
Hong Kong Standard
Friday, November 18, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aboveday]

Thanks bs_lover_boy...

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

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

correct.
and now who is misleading the public?

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aboveday]

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

[Aboveday]

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[InitialD18]

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

[vincent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Constitutional Affairs Bureau felt there was no need to delay the Tamar project, which a spokesman said would have "no significant impact on the air pollution in the Central Business District".
Tamar site is Central Reclamation phase 2. NOT phase 3.

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Effer]

Another huge project in Hong Kong! :okay:

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

Stop and rethink Tamar

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

Monday, December 19, 2005
Hong Kong Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

The reclamation has begun!

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

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

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

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

[Duopolis]

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

[SUNNI]

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

[raymond_tung88]

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

[Duopolis]

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

[Mosaic]

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

[Aboveday]

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

Road P2 a key interim measure

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

An uninterrupted harbour view
24 December 2005
South China Morning Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

[SJM]

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

[hkskyline]

Ip in Tamar jobs drive for construction woes

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

Michael Ng
Hong Kong Standard
Tuesday, January 03, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FM 2258]

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


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

[hkskyline]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hkskyline]

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