The 5th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU) 2011 National University of Singapore, Department of Architecture Global Visions: Risks and Opportunities for the Urban Planet

G L O B A L V ISI O NS & L O C A L ASPIR AT I O NS ± T O WA RDS N E W F O R MS O F N E G O TI AT I O N IN H O NG K O N G

*H. Tieben & **S. Govada

*School of Architecture, The Chinese University of , Shatin, Hong Kong SAR Email: [email protected] ** School of Architecture, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, Email: [email protected]

A BST R A C T: In the competition for foreign investments, talents, and tourists, cities experience tensions created between attempts to shape urban images of global prominence and aspirations to safeguard local identities, ensure cultural continuities, and improve the quality of city life. This paper traces newly emerging forms of negotiation between the government and the community E\IRFXVLQJRQ  +RQJ.RQJ¶VUHFHQt Urban Renewal Strategy Review and ³&RQVHUYLQJ&HQWUDO´ initiative; as well as (2) the harbourfront developments and the public engagement process for the West Kowloon Cultural District. It explores the questions: Are the evolving forms of negotiations leading to a fundamental paradigm shift in making Hong Kong a more sustainable city? And, can they help to bridge the gap between global visions and community aspirations in shaping the future development of Hong Kong?

K E Y W O RDS: Hong Kong, urban image, identity, urban design, public engagement, social sustainability

Fig.1: The site of the future West Kowloon Cultural District with the International Commerce Centre & Kowloon Station behind (H. Tieben, 2009).

1 IN T R O DU C T I O N

In the competition for foreign investments, talents, and tourists, cities experience tensions created between the *RYHUQPHQW¶Vattempts to shape urban images of global prominence and community aspirations to safeguard local identities, ensure cultural continuities, and improve the quality of city life. After the handover in 1997, the newly established Hong Kong SAR Government pushed forward a series of projects, EUDQGLQJ+RQJ.RQJDV³$VLD¶V:RUOG&LW\´,QWKHHDUO\Vseveral controversies arose as reactions to these projects and showed the growing aspirations of the people of Hong Kong to shape the future of the city after the end of the British colonial rule. The paper traces newly emerging forms of negotiation and participation in response to those aspirations by focusing on (1) the Urban Renewal Strategy Review and the ³&RQVHUYLQJ&HQWUDO´ initiative, launched by the Government after criticism of the first project generation

of the (created in 2001); and (2) the recent harbourfront developments, with a focus on the public engagement process and the three alternative urban design schemes for the West Kowloon Cultural District after the first project was abandoned in 2004. With these various controversies new community groups and NGOs emerged, thus creating alliances between community members, activists, academics, professionals and the private sector. As a reaction, the Development Bureau of the Government started an extensive strategy review of the Urban Renewal Authority. This paper addresses the questions: Are the new evolving forms of negotiation between the community and the public sector leading to a fundamental paradigm shift in making Hong Kong a more sustainable city? And, what are the chances to bring the global visions closer to the aspirations and needs of the community?

2 B A C K G RO UND

New forms of negotiation emerged in a political context which leaves Hong Kong people limited leverage to influence the development of the city-state.i The recent debates on urban and heritage issues can be seen as Hong Kong people¶VVHDUFK for their own identities after the end of the British colonial rule and as a substitute for more substantial political participation.ii With the explicit government policy to strengthen +RQJ.RQJ¶VJOREDOFLW\IXQFWLRQs, the symptom of a widening gap between the rich and the poor, as predicted by Saskia Sassen, could be traced back for the years since the 1990s (Chiu & Lui, 2004). CRQFHUQVDUHDOVRUHODWHGWRWKHRSDTXHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQ+RQJ.RQJ¶VJRYHUQPHQWDQGD small number of influential property developers (Chu, 2010). As an example, a /HJLVODWLYH&RXQFLO¶V investigative committee blamed the Secretary for the Civil Service and nearly all other government officials in December 2010 for approving the employment of the former housing director at New World China Land after him having been publicly criticized for selling the Hunghom Estate ± a still unoccupied new public housing estate ± below value to the same large developer in 2004 (Chu, 2010; Fung & Sito, 2010). In addition, the current negotiations between the government and citizen groups on matters of daily concerns can be seen as new emerging forms of political practices in a time when political responsibilities of government are being undertaken by NGOs and the private sector. In the context of Western democracies, Bruno Latour reminds us of the limitations of the traditional forms of political representations³>&]ritique as a repertoire´SXWV/DWRXU ³is over. It has run out of steam entirely, and now the ZKROHTXHVWLRQLVµKRZFDQZHEHFULWLFDOQRWE\GLVWDQFHEXWE\SUR[LPLW\"¶´Thus he points towards new forms of political practices developing in debates around matters of concern (Latour, 2005). Given the political set up of Hong Kong and other regions in Asia, it is important to inspect the opportunities and limitations of the new emerging forms of negotiation between government, developers, professionals, NGOs and community groups.

3 A RISIN G C O N T R O V ERSI ES A R O UND URB A N R E N E WA L

In July 2008, as a response to growing public demand to pay more respect to urban heritage and community life, the new Secretary for Development Mrs. Carrie Lam (since 2007) announced a Urban Renewal Strategy Review in order to guide the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) projects. The URA divided its projects according to the four strategies: Redevelopment, Rehabilitation, Revitalisation and Reservation ("4R"). Most controversies were related to its redevelopment projects which constitutes a large proportion of its developments. When the URA was first established in 2001, it inherited 25 projects from its predecessor, the Land Development Corporation (LDC). To make the URA more successful than the LDC, the government granted it with a stronger power to resume urban renewal sites. TKHW\SLFDOWHQHPHQWKRXVHVLQ+RQJ.RQJ¶V older urban districts (Sai Ying Pun, Sheung Wan, and Wan Chai) have multiple ownerships which made resumption of large renewal sites for the LDC difficult and time consuming (Adams & Hastings, 2000). This left many residents during the 1990s in limbo waiting for/or fearing the wholesale redevelopment of their neighbourhoods (Tieben, Woo & Yuet, 2008). In contrast, the URA was able to realize its projects faster against the wishes of the community and some residents. An example is the redevelopment project H15 of , a long established, popular, and economically successful cluster of local businesses producing Wedding Cards and trading with various weddings related items. The URA inherited this project from the LDC which had announced it in 1997. The URA acknowledged in principle the special identity of the place. However, it planned to substitute

3 its shop tenement houses with a shopping mall that tries to recreate its identity. The URA explained on its wHEVLWH³7KHXQLTXHLGHQWLW\RIDSODFHLVWKHEHVWZD\WRDWWUDFWSHRSOHDQGEXVLQHVV7KHZHGGLQJFDUG shops had once given Lee Tung Street a unique local character. Therefore, adopting a wedding theme for the future development serves appropriately as a OLQNWRWKHSDVW´iii This contradiction existed already in publications of the LDC, an instance of which was the redevelopment of the vibrant street life of Centre Street in Sai Ying Pun. The street was praised for its character but the presented renewal proposal would substitute most of the original houses with small businesses for new towers with wide open spaces (LDC, 1990). Chester Yung, by quoting a community worker, SRLQWHGRXWWKHLURQ\RIWKHJRYHUQPHQW¶VSODQWR create a 40 hectares ³&XOWXUDO'LVWULFW´on the newly reclaimed land in West Kowloon, while at the same time the cultural heritage of tens of thousands of people is demolished. As a reaction to the URA project, residents of Lee Tung Street formed the H15 Concern Group and came up with an alternative design proposal which was submitted to the Town Planning Board. Despite a Silver Medal awarded by the Hong Kong Institute of Planners for this proposal in 2005, the URA project went ahead and by 2008 all buildings of Lee Tung Street were demolished. Chu Hoi-dick, a core member of the NGO Local Action sees a paradigm change in the year 2004, when different concern groups and residents started to communicate more with each other (e.g. H15, SEE Network, Central & Western Concern Group, Local Action Group). Before that, there were mainly professional groups and academics fighting for the protection of singular heritage buildings (e.g. the old Kowloon Railway Station in the 1970s). But in 2004 broader parts of the population became more involved with the widened attention to community networks, local business clusters, and intangible heritage.iv With the protest against the demolition of the Star Ferry Pier and the 4XHHQ¶V3LHULQDQG UHVSHFWLYHO\+RQJ.RQJ¶VKHULWDJHGHEDWHUHDFKHGDSHDNDQd began to make international headlines (England, 2006). In January 2007, Chief Executive Donald Tsang described these HYHQWVDVµZDWHUVKHGV¶ However, KHXUJHGWKHSXEOLFWKDW³Whe meteoric rise of many competing cities within the region, and especially tKRVHLQWKHPDLQODQGPHDQVZHPXVWNHHSDILUPJULSRQRXUFRPSHWLWLYHDGYDQWDJH´DQGWKDW ³>Z@HFDQQRWDIIRUGKHULWDJHSUHVHUYDWLRQLIZHGRQRWSUHVHUYHRXUHFRQRPLFVXVWDLQDELOLW\´ &KHXQJ  In the same year, just before the Beijing Olympics and the global financial crisis, many Chinese cities embarked on ambitious and costly projects revamping their city images in the national and international media (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen et.al.). The early URA projects involved consultations with residents; however, these were organized only after the major decisions were made and any specific changes would be difficult to realize. In addition, WKHLQIRUPDWLRQSURYLGHGFRXOGPLVOHDGUHVLGHQWVDVWKH85$¶V³$UWLVW,PSUHVVLRQV´ZHUHGUDZQLQoften distorted perspectives showing only the street level without the planned towers as the biggest parts of the building programs. Residents had to imagine the towers by studying carefully the amount of square meters per site. An example was the URA project for First and Second Streets in Sai Ying Pun (Fig. 2), for which the ³$UWLVW,PSUHVVLRQ´VKRZHGDODUJHRSHQVSDFHVXUURXQGHGZLWK-5 storey traditional buildings while the real project consisted of two 36 storey high condominium towers (Island Crest) and was a harsh contrast to the before published image (Tieben, Woo, & Yuet, 2008).

Fig. 2: ³Artist Impression´ of the consultation phase (left), and developer rendering of the later realized URA First and Second Streets Project in Sai Ying Pun (right).

4 N E W PL AT F O R MS F O R D E B AT E

In 2007-08, the Hong Kong Shenzhen Bi-City Biennale of Architecture and Urbanism created a prominent platform where different concerned groups could gather in a prominent place in the city to discuss. It was the

first Architecture and Urbanism Biennale in Hong Kong, supported by the government only as a response to 6KHQ]KHQ¶VSDUDOOHOH[KLELWLRQDFURVVWKHERUGHU/HDGFXUDWRU:HLMHQ:DQJDQGKLVWHDPSODFHGZLWKWKHLU title Re-fabricating City: Metamorphosis of an urban fabric WKHHPSKDVLVRQ+RQJ.RQJ¶VXUEDQ transformation (Chung & Wang, 2009). Many exhibitors followed this direction by directly addressing the recent controversies; for instance the H15 Concern Group presented their fight against the demolition of Lee Tung Street. The location of the Biennale in the Central Police Station and Victoria Prison became an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the potential of a heritage site as a place for public debate and a venue for cultural activities. As such, it could be understood as an alternative model to the West Kowloon Cultural District proposed mainly to attract tourists to a site built on land reclamations and relatively distant to the main urban areas. Public discussions were a key part of the Biennale Program. Professional institutes were also active. In addition to the HKIA which was responsible for the organization of the Biennale, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Hong Kong organized a Heritage Charrette including a panel discussion on the Central Police Station and the Police Married Quarters. Here William Yu presented the Hong Kong Jockey &OXE¶VSURSRVDOIRUWKH&HQWUDO3ROLFH6WDWLRQ, prepared in collaboration with the Swiss architects Herzog & De Meuron. This first scheme included a tall tower which was opposed by Maggie Brooke from Heritage Hong Kong and others.v In addition, Katty Law from the Central and Western District Concern Group underlined the need for an adaptive reuse of the Police Married Quarters due to the unearthing of the old Central School Ruins. After the Biennale event, similar workshops and debates continued. Some are now regularly organized by the NGO Designing Hong Kong XQGHUWKHWLWOH³&LW\6SHDN´Designing Hong Kong was founded earlier in 2002 by Christine Loh, Markus Shaw, Peter Wong, and Paul Zimmerman. Their City Speak series gathers different stakeholders, planners, architects, and activists in public panel discussions addressing specific matters of concern. This helped bring more light to +RQJ.RQJ¶VWRSGRZQSODQQLQJ process through public engagement while jointly searching for solutions. In 2000, Christine Loh had founded the Think Tank Civic Exchange, after stepping down as a member of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Thanks to the diverse backgrounds of the founders of Designing Hong Kong, the organisation was able to open the professional discussions on urban planning and design to a broad spectrum of the society. As an important tool for communication, they started to broadcast videos of the debates on their websites. There has been ongoing active participation of concern groups such as the Central and Western Concern Group, the World City Committee, Designing Hong Kong and Professional Commons. Together they started to act as a watch dog monitoring and critically evaluating Government policies and recommendations. Aided by the voluntary efforts of professionals, these groups started to change Government decisions and policies on several major issues (e.g. the removal of the Police Married Quarters and the Central Market from the Land Sales Registry).

5 URB A N R E N E WA L - UND E R R E V I E W

As a response to the critique of the URA redevelopment approach, the Development Bureau launched an Urban Renewal Strategy (URS) Review which encompassed three stages: (1) envisioning stage (Jul. 2008±Jan. 2009), (2) public engagement stage (Feb.±Dec. 2009), and (3) consensus building stage (Jan.±June 2010). The review included also the comparison of renewal strategies in other Asian cities. In October 2010, the Consultancy Services for the Public Engagement for the URS Review published their final report (A-:RUOG&RQVXOWLQJ/WG LQZKLFKWKH\VXPPDUL]HGWKHPDMRULW\YLHZVDPRQJ+RQJ.RQJ¶V population. 7KHLVVXHVZKLFKDWWUDFWHGPRVWFRQFHUQVZHUHLGHQWLILHGDV³ 1) compensation and re-housing policies, (2) vision and scope of urban regeneration, (3) the roles of stakeholders, (4) the 4Rs strategy in urban regeneration, (5) public engagement, (6) social impact assessment and social service team, and (7) the financial arrangemenW´ (A-World Consulting Ltd., 2010). The majority views on the ³Yision and scope of urban rHQHZDO´ZHUH D 8UEDQUHQHZDOVKRXOG bring about enhancement of living quality, enjoyment of life and beautification of the city; (b) Urban regeneration should be planned with a people-centred approach and a bottom-up public engagement process; (c) Local historical and cultural characteristics of the urban areas should be respected; (d) The Government should preserve existing social networks and the sense of safety and familiarity they generate; (e) The Government should consider factors of sustainable development, such as environmental effects of

5

UHGHYHORSPHQWLQFUHDVLQJJUHHQDQGRSHQVSDFHVDQGPLQLPL]LQJ³ZDOOHIIHFWV´DQGEXLOGLQJGHQVLW\ I  Instead of building big shopping malls in the redevelopment projects, the URA should try to preserve unique local commercial networks to allow opportunity for both big enterprises and small shops to compete; (g) The URA should have a set of open and transparent selection criteria as well as listen to the concerns of the affected communities when selecting appropriate redevelopment projects; and (h) the pace of urban renewal VKRXOGEHLQFUHDVHG´ Other issues which raised major concerns were that residents should be re-housed in the same district and criticism related to the general attitude of the URA: lacking accountability and transparency, having too strong power to redeem sites; paying too little attention to social responsibility ahead of making profits. Also people wished that the performance of the URA should not be assessed in terms of financial returns (A-World Consulting Ltd., 2010). These concerns found further ground, when in June 2010 the net profit of HK$2 billion from eight completed projects in the past five years was published, a surplus up to 42 times of the redevelopment costs (Wong & Ng, 2010). During the review process the URA conducted several district studies in older urban areas to DVVHVVWKHFRPPXQLW\¶VYLHZVRQWKHLUrespective districts. As a result the URS Review recommends the formation of a District Urban Renewal Forum (DURF) which should work closely with the URA to come up with an urban renewal strategy for a specific area. Thanks to the URS Review, there is a chance that the needs and aspirations of the population could be met better if the Government would be willing and able to implement more sensitive urban regeneration strategies. However, during the URS Review the Graham Street Market Redevelopment of the URA went ahead and was not included as part of the review process. This raised suspicion as much effort was spent by the NGO World City Committee and concerned professionals to develop an alternative proposal for Graham Street to oppose the URA development plan for Graham Street. The proposal was submitted to the Town Planning Board, and it rejected the application on the ground that the project, which was based on voluntary effort, was not supported by technical impact assessments (including a transport assessment) which would have been too expensive and time consuming for the NGO and volunteers to undertake. However, the plan was instrumental in changing the URA to re-evaluate their approved plan by removing the extensive basement and trying to implement a phased development plan to save the street market.vi

6 R E C E N T G O V E RN M E N T ,1,7,$7,9(³&216(59,1*&(175$/´

In the 2009-10 Policy Address, the Chief Executive Donald Tsang commenteGRQ+RQJ.RQJ¶VDQVZHUWRWKH global financial crisis and presented his new policy outline (HKSAR Government, 2009). After discussing WKHFKDOOHQJHVIRU+RQJ.RQJ¶VHFRQRPLFFRPSHWLWLYHQHVVKHFRQWLQXHGZLWKWKHWRSLF³4XDOLW\RI/LIH´in which he put forth his idea of a Progressive Development³,QWKHFXUUHQWHUDHFRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQWJRHV hand-in-hand with cultural and environmental conservation. To support a knowledge-based economy, we must have a rich pool of talent. Only by providing a diverse and dynamic cultural life and a quality living environment can we attract talent from around the world to build a cDUHHULQ+RQJ.RQJ´ +.6$5 *RYHUQPHQW $FFRUGLQJWRWKLVIRU+RQJ.RQJ¶V&KLHI([HFXWLYHWKHQHHGWRFRPSHWHIRUIRUHLJQ WDOHQWVLVWKHPDLQPRWLYDWLRQIRUWKHSURSRVHGLQLWLDWLYHVRIWKH³%HDXWLILFDWLRQRIWKH+DUERuUIURQW´DQG ³&RQVHUYLQJ&HQWUDO´ It was the first time that HKSAR Government took the initiative to come up with a proposal addressing heritage conservation. It includes eight sites that are all located in the centre of : the Central Government Offices Complex, the Central Market, the Central Police Station (CPS) Compound, the former French Mission Building, Murray Building, the New Central Harbourfront (not a heritage site), the Police Married Quarters (PMQ) at Hollywood Road, and the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Compound. However, this is just a collection of sites with proposals for most for their adaptive reuse. There is no holistic area based conservation plan. Currently, there still exists no ordinance to develop such a conservation plan, although it has been an important tool in other cities such as Singapore and Sydney. One of the first projects of the initiative was the conservation and revitalisation of the Central Market, a modern functionalist building from the years 1938-39 with characteristic white plaster facades, horizontal belt windows and streamline details such as the rounded corners. In his policy address, the Chief Executives assured that the site of the market would be withdrawn from the Government Land Sales Application, thus making way for its revitalisation. This followed the earlier mentioned demand of the

Central and Western District Concern Group. Since 2003, only the upper floor was used as part of the central escalator system, while other parts of the building remained unused and further dilapidated. The URA SURSRVHGWKHFRQFHSWRIDQ³8UEDQ2DVLV´DIWHUDVHULHVRIFRQVXOWDWLRQPHHWLQJVDQGFKDUUHWWHV,QFRQWUDVW to the earlier URA practice, this project started with an opinion survey to understand first the community needs and interests, and then to prepare a project which thus might become more welcomed by the community. If seen in a more holistic way, the CPS, PMQ and the Central Market could together form a Cultural Triangle in Central which together would add more value to the surrounding than the single sites for themselves. Another project of ³Conserving Central´ is associated with the site of the Government Offices, an ensemble of functionalist buildings from the 1950s. The building group will lose its original function at the end of 2011, when the Government offices will have been relocated to the new Central Government Complex at Tamar on the harbourfront. Currently, the Main and East Wings are meant to be preserved, while the West Wing is planned to be demolished and its site to be sold to a private developer.vii The current plan shows a five storey high commercial podium on (approx 13,500m2) with a public space on top which aligns (although still being higher) with the level of the Main Wing on . Another part of the project is a new 32 storey high office tower in the west corner of the site.viii This plan has raised new concerns as the planned demolition of the entire West Wing does not follow the recommendations made by the report commissioned by the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO), which mentioned an option of changing only the western end of the West Wing. It also recommended programs suitable to the specific meaning of the site and to keep the current building height. Another concern is related to the consequences of selling the site to a private developer. This can be seen as problematic due to the recent experience with another important heritage site ± the Former Marine Police Headquarters Compound (with the former Kowloon Fire Station and Signal Tower) ± which was leased in 2003 to Flying Snow Ltd. a subsidiary of Li .D6KLQJ¶VCheung Kong Holdings Ltd. Subsequently, the declared monument was transformed into a high class hotel and shopping mall (1881 Heritage) with small exhibition rooms, stripping off its historical significance and creating privatized public space controlled by guards and without basic amenities such as seating. A charrette session was recently organisHGE\1*2VWRGLVFXVVWKH*RYHUQPHQW¶VSURSRVDODQGWR come up with an alternative adaptive reuse of Government Hill. The two discussed projects of the initiative ³Conserving Central´ show some positive and negative aspects. The Central Market project is aiming to response to the community aspirations which were studied here at the beginning of the planning process. However, the Government Offices project follows the older practice which was oriented towards economic aspects by selling important parts of one of Hong .RQJ¶VPRVWLPSRUWDQWKHritage sites, Government Hill, to a private developer for its transformation into a five storey shopping podium hidden by vertical landscaping and an office tower. The project contradicts the recommendations of the report commissioned by the AMO and the URS Review which documented the wish of the majority of the population not to lose heritage sites for profit making and generally critiqued the construction of further large shopping malls. It can also be questioned whether the project will strengthen +RQJ.RQJ¶VLGHQWLW\DQG help to attract foreign tourists as there exists already a large number of shopping malls in central. In fact the history of Government Hill as the location of Hong Kong¶s governmental centre reaches back to the establishment of the British Colony, and it should be more interesting and meaningful. After the demolition of the Star Ferry Pier and the Queen¶s Pier, Wan Chai Market and the transformation of the former Marine Police Headquarters, it would be a further step to erase the memory of the Hong Kong before the handover to the People¶s Republic of China. The projects of the initiative ³Conserving Central´ still need to be brought in line with the results RIWKHFRQVXOWDWLRQUHSRUWDQGWKHYLHZVRIWKHSXEOLFFROOHFWHGE\WKH*RYHUQPHQW¶V8565HYLHZ,QWKH meantime still the contURYHUVLDOSODQIRUWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIIRXUWRZHUVLQWKHPLGGOHRI+RQJ.RQJ¶V vibrant and popular street market at Graham and Peel Streets is going ahead despite long and repeatedly voiced community objections.

7 PL A NNIN G T H E N E W H A RB O URF R O N T

In the past, Hong Kong people had to be content with enjoying the harbour from a distance rather than being close to the harbourfront, and for a famous harbour city, there exist little land marine interface and limited water transport. However, over the last years, Victoria Harbour has been seen as a natural heritage and public

7 asset. Extensive reclamations in Central and Wan Chai I, II and III were criticized as they would turn the harbour into a narrow river with additional negative effects on the water quality. In 1995, as a response to the extent of reclamation projects, the Society for the Protection of the Harbour (SPH) was formed to protect Victoria Harbour. They were successful in pushing through the Harbour Protection Ordinance. With the growing concern over the continued reclamation by the Government in the Central Harbourfront, the Society filed a case that asked for a prohibition of any future reclamation until there would be an overriding public need, and the case eventually went to the Court of Final Appeal Judgment. As a result, the extent of reclamation was scaled down considerably with zero reclamation proposed for the Kai Tak redevelopment. In 2003, Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour (CE@H), a loose coalition of sixteen academic, professional organizations and civil society groups was formed in an attempt to bring together various stakeholders to build consensus related to the harbourfront and avoid future legal battles related to reclamation. CE@H organized a series of exhibitions, workshops and charrettes to discuss the various issues related to reclamation of the harbour and the harbourfront enhancement. CE@H recommended to the Government that a roundtable should be formed to champion the public engagement process for the harbourfront planning. In 2004, an advisory body, the Harbour Enhancement Committee (HEC), was formed, which consisted of representatives from the private, public, academic and civil society in order to guide harbourfront planning and to facilitate public engagement in the planning process. The setting up of the HEC has been instrumental in allowing more public engagement and promoting sustainable development. It also developed the Harbour Planning Principles under the following headings: 1) preserving Victoria Harbour, 2) stakeholder engagement, 3) sustainable development, 4) integrated planning, 5) proactive harbour enhancement, 6) vibrant harbour, 7) accessible harbour, 8) public enjoyment. The HEC¶V Harbour Planning Principles and Guidelines help guide harbourfront planning in Hong Kong. The Harbour Enhancement Review (HER) Study for Wan Chai, Causeway and Adjoining Areas among others was a project sponsored by the HEC for the Central Wan Chai Bypass. The HEC representatives studied opportunities and challenges in such harbour cities as San Francisco, Vancouver, Sydney, Singapore, London and Liverpool. Finally they recommended a management model for Hong Kong and the establishment of the Harbour Commission which was recently formed to realize harbourfront enhancement. In addition, the Harbour Business Forum (HBF), as a private sector initiative, was formed to recognise the business value of Victoria Harbour. Over the years the HBF has been instrumental in undertaking the Harbour Audit, the Harbour Value Study, the Harbourfront ConnectiYLW\6WXG\DQGWKH,QWHJUDWHG+DUERXU6WXG\WRLQIOXHQFHWKH*RYHUQPHQW¶VSODQQLQJ Several recommendations from the HBF studies, especially the Harbourfront Connectivity Study and the Integrated Harbour Studies, have been taken on board by Government. In 2010, the newly formed Harbourfront Commission (HC) has replaced the previous Harbourfront Enhancement Committee (HEC).ix Its task is to realise an accessible, attractive and vibrant harbourfront for public enjoyment with the mission: ³7RUHDOLVe the vision of Victoria Harbour and its harbour-front areas to become an attractive, vibrant, accessible and sustainable world-class asset: a KDUERXUIRUWKHSHRSOHDKDUERXURIOLIH´

8 T H E C E N T R A L H A RB O UR F RO N T ± T H E JO URN E Y C O N T INU ES

After more than a century of Central Harbourfront developments through reclamation, the decision to stop further land reclamation opened up the opportunity to create a public waterfront with a ³final´ water edge. In 2007, it was the NGO Designing Hong Kong which took the initiative and organised an international competition that attracted 88 submissions worldwide (www.designinghongkong.com). After a two stage process, IRXUZLQQLQJHQWULHVZHUHVHOHFWHGRIZKLFKWKH³(PHUDOG1HFNODFH´, with its inner harbour and a continuous harbourfront promenade as an animated edge with several attractions along the waterfront, was considered innovative, practical and implementable by the community and the Government. The Government finally undertook a Central Urban Design Study that involved a two stage public engagement process and came up with an urban design proposal based on the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) that was considered less than satisfactory by the public. As part of the public engagement process the award winning ³(PHUDOG1HFNODFH´entry wDVUHYLVHGDQGUHVXEPLWWHGDVWKH8UEDQ'HVLJQ$OOLDQFH¶V 8'$  UHVSRQVHWR*RYHUQPHQW¶V&RQVXOWDWLRQ'LJHVWIRUWKH&HQWUDO+DUERXUIURQW7KHFRPSHWLWLRQHQWU\ZDV refined to take into account constraints and opportunities, and professional planners, architects, traffic

planners, engineers and surveyors worked together to ensure its practical and commercial viability. Following the Harbour Planning Principles, the UDA proposal developed an urban design framework rather than an outline zoning framework suggested by the Government proposal. The UDA scheme offered a mixed use experience, recognizable landmarks, a commercially viable harbourfront, humanly scaled pedestrian linkages, and design innovation. This proposal was eventually able to influence the Government in removing ± as part of the ³Conserving Central´ initiative ± the two tall towers proposed in front of the International Finance Centre (IFC) and relocating the development in front of the CITIC Tower. There still remains the need for a more place based approach with public-private and community partnership for the sustainable development of a Central harbourfront that is universal in its understanding, and attractive for local residents and visitors alike, yet entrenched in community contexts and the cultural meaning of the city.

Fig. 3: OMA proposal for the West Kowloon Cultural District, public engagement process 2nd stage, 2010.

9 W EST K O W L O O N C U LT UR A L DIST RI C T ± T H E SE C O ND T I M E A RO UND

The most ambitious and prominent project at the harbourfront is the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) (www.wkcda.hk). It is planned next to the new International Commerce Centre on top of Kowloon Station, with the airport express. The site is linked by the Cross Harbor [Vehicular] Tunnel to Hong Kong Island, and with the currently constructed Express Rail Station to Mainland China. After the failed start of the project at the beginning of the new millennium, it now becomes an important experiment to bridge the gap between the visions of the government and the aspirations of the community. The controversies about the original project were related to the missing relationship of the proposed program and design to community interests. The project had originally started as a response of the Government to a survey of the Tourism Board in 1996, which showed that tourists observed a lack of cultural opportunities in Hong Kong. The project, initiated under the first Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa, was attacked after the government decided to give the entire area to one developer (Chu, 2010). There were additional questions about the appropriateness of the original scheme by Foster + Partners with its large glass canopy covering most of the site. The government went on to call for tender submissions and attracted only eight schemes, of which just two could conform with the requirements of creating the canopy and putting the major buildings below. One scheme proposed a green park as a canopy while the scheme of Swire was put forward as a non-confirming submission. It discarded the canopy and advocated that the existing cultural venues in Wan Chai and TST should be strengthened in addition to those proposed in the WKCD. This submission was controversial and was rejected by the Government. Finally, the first stage of the then initiated public engagement process came to an end; the program of the entire district was reconsidered in a lengthy debate with the community including a wide range of stakeholders, and eventually led to the halt of the initial project in 2004. The second time around, the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) was set up with a substantial funding, power and a complex process involving three leading architects and another planning team to come up with final plans for the WKCD. An elaborate two stage public engagement process was launched which rebooted the entire process. On August 20, 2010, as part of the second stage, the three design consultants ± Foster + Partners,

9

Rocco Design Architects, and Office for Metropolitan Architecture ± presented their designs to the public for comments. All three consultants addressed the changed atmosphere of Hong Kong by aiming to engage strongly with the local culture and to highlight the integration of the new district with the exiting city. Foster + Partners proposed a large park in the west end of the site and a new district as an extension of Kowloon in which most of the cultural venues would be imbedded. The Hong Kong firm Rocco Design Architects proposed a network of intricate public spaces as an armature connecting the different venues of the cultural district and with its surrounding. It also included additional local cultural facilities. When compared with its building for the China Central Television Headquarters built for the Beijing Olympics in 2008, Rem .RROKDDV¶s OMA team proposed IRU+RQJ.RQJDVFKHPHZLWKWKUHH³YLOODJHV´IRUDQincremental growth of local cultural facilities (Fig. 3)7KHSURMHFWLVFRPELQHGZLWKDGHWDLOHG³&XOWXUDO0DS´RI+RQJ.RQJDQG Kowloon and leaves room for new uses and cultural trends in the future. The WKCDA is currently reviewing the inputs of the public engagement process and eventually will select one scheme for further development and realisation.

10 C O N C L USI O NS

Hong Kong people are expressing growing interests in their local heritage and experiment with new ways to influence the fate of their city in search for their own identities. The lack of responsiveness to public concerns in the first years of the HKSAR led to the formation of various community groups and NGOs which created alternative platforms for debates and could gain influence as part of the planning process. The Urban Renewal Strategy Revision, the engagement process of the Central Market and the West Kowloon Cultural District are important steps to bring the global visions of the government (mainly to attract foreign tourists and talents) closer to the community aspirations. Due to the surveys of the URS Review, views of the public on important issues are now available and should be considered by policy makers and planners. The important developments in Hong Kong might have been facilitated by a more critical mood in the uncertain times of the global financial crisis, although it is ± as shown here ± also strongly related to the specific situation of Hong Kong. The three new proposed projects for the West Kowloon Cultural District all no longer follow the trend of architectural icons, ideas prevalent before the financial crisis. Instead they emphasize orientation towards cultural context and community concerns. The paper traced different forms of negotiation between Hong Kong SAR Government, NGOs, professionals, community groups, and the wider public. It focused on urban renewal strategies and the harbourfront developments. The research should be extended to trace the related debates on environmental issues.x Also the situation of Hong Kong could be compared with other Asian and Western cities. The new negotiations in Hong Kong are made on platforms both provided by the government as part of public engagement exercises and on platforms created by NGOs, professional institutes, and community groups. Despite these major changes since the mid of the 2000s, it still needs to be seen how the newly emerging culture of public debate and discussion can affect decisions about the planning and urban design that will shape the future development of Hong Kong. The discussions focus on the harbourfront and the regeneration of the older urban districts will fundamentally redefine Hong Kong¶s urban image. In the future, the attention will have to go beyond these central areas to other districts of Hong Kong. In the process many residents have become more engaged in shaping the future of their city; this in itself already is an important step to create an active public realm, sensitive new developments and the regeneration of the older urban areas, and will help to make Hong Kong more sustainable. Other cities in the region in Asia can learn from +RQJ.RQJ¶VUHFHQWH[SHULHQFHRI the way the community and multiple stakeholders work together to shape a more sustainable city. This process of continuous community debate and discussion about Government policy decisions and plans provides the critical checks and balance to ensure that the community, policy and decision makers have a common city vision that addresses the global vision and local aspirations to lead to the sustainable development of Hong Kong.

R E F E R E N C ES

[1] A-World Consulting Ltd., Co-creating a Better Living Environment, Consultancy Services for the Public Engagement for the Urban Renewal Strategy Review, Final Report, Hong Kong, (October 2010).

www.ursreview.gov.hk/eng/doc/20101014_URS%20Review_Final%20Report%20(Eng)_FINAL.pdf [2] Adams, D. and Hastings, E.M., Urban renewal in Hong Kong: the record of the Land Development Corporation, London: RICS Research Foundation, 2000. [3] &KHQJ - ³3URWHFW KHULWDJH DQG JURZWK XUJHV 7VDQJ´ The Standard, Monday, January 29, 2007, Business. [4] &KLX6:. /XL7/³7HVWLQJWKH*OREDO&LW\-Social Polarisation Thesis: Hong Kong since the V´Urban Studies, 41(10), September 2004, pp. 1863±1888. [5] &KX&³3HRSOH3RZHUDV([FHSWLRQ7KUHH&RQWURYHUVLHVRI3ULYDWLVDWLRQLQ3RVW-handover +RQJ.RQJ´Urban Studies, 47(8), July 2010, pp. 1773±1792. [6] Chung, T. & Wang, W.J. (eds.), Refabricating City: A Reflection, Oxford University Press, 2010. [7] (QJODQG9³&ODVKHVDW+.IHUU\SLHUSURWHVW´BBC News, Hong Kong, 13 December 2006. [8] )XQJ):< 6LWR3³0LQLVWHU PDGHJUDYHHUURU LQMREIiasco. Denise Yue to blame for ex-official WDNLQJSRVW´South China Morning Post, December 9, 2010, A1. [9] Latour, B., ³)URP5HDOSROLWLNWR'LQJSROLWLNRU+RZWR0DNH7KLQJV3XEOLF¶´in Latour, B. & Weibel, P (eds.), Making Things Public Atmospheres of Democracy, Cambridge, Massachusetts / London, England: MIT Press, 2005, pp. 14-43. [10] Land Development Corporation, A Proposed Urban Redevelopment Strategy for Central And Western/Wan Chai: Executive Summary, Hong Kong: Land Development Corporation, 1990. [11] Hong Kong SAR Government, &KLHI([HFXWLYH6LU'RQDOG7VDQJ¶V 2009-10 Policy Address: Breaking New Ground Together, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, 2009. http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/09-10/eng/index.html, retrieved 14.12.2010 [12] Tieben, H., Woo P.L., Yuet T. &³'HYHORSPHQWRU'HVWUXFWLRQ"7KH7UDQVIRUPDWLRQRI6DL