MANAGING VIBRANT STREETS 2 Street Performance Policy in (Interim Report)

Carine Lai | Ximin Zhou

September 2020

i About Civic Exchange

Civic Exchange is an independent public policy think-tank with a vision to shape a liveable and sustainable Hong Kong. Our mission is to engage society and influence public policy through research, dialogue and the development of practical solutions. Our research covers four major areas: environment, economy, society, and governance, with an overarching framework of promoting wellbeing.

Civic Exchange is regularly ranked among the top 50 environmental think-tanks in the world by the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania.

To read more, go to www.civic-exchange.org

About the Authors

Carine Lai is a researcher with a special focus on urban design, the public realm, and open space. She is also a visual artist with an interest in data visualisation. She is currently a project manager at the WYNG Foundation, and was previously a project manager at Civic Exchange from 2012 to 2016. Past topics of research have included open space provision, urban wellbeing, walkability, and urban renewal. Carine has a MSc in International Planning from University College London and a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Studio Art from Tufts University.

Ximin Zhou is a researcher with a focus on the social impact of urban issues and action- oriented research informed by design thinking and ethnographic methods. She is currently a researcher at Civic Exchange, with previous experience in academic and commercial research, as well as marketing across sectors. Dr Zhou holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Social Anthropology from the University of Manchester and a MSc in Social Anthropology from the London School of Economics.

ii Preface and Acknowledgements

Reshaping public space is crucial to enhancing walkability Civic Exchange is grateful to the study’s authors, Carine and improving urban liveability. This is a fact that urban Lai and Ximin Zhou, for their continual efforts and planners and policymakers alike increasingly recognise. diligence in planning, designing and conducting this The Hong Kong Government pledged in recent Policy research to help build a more sustainable and liveable Addresses and in its territorial development strategy to urban environment for Hong Kong and its citizens. Carine improve the pedestrian environment by encouraging Lai was kindly seconded to Civic Exchange by the WYNG walking and promoting diversity and vibrancy across Foundation for this project. Hong Kong’s streets and districts. In Hong Kong’s highly dense urban environment, acknowledging the function of We would like to thank and acknowledge the streets as a convenient and efficient means of transport contributions of the Civic Exchange Team Dr Berto Lee is an important first step. But recognizing their wider and Fiona Lau, Operations Manager John So, and Intern role in creating attractive, liveable, and social places can, Daniel Kan, as well as former Senior Advisor Natalie Chan however, be challenging. and former Programme Manager, Yvonne Law.

Expanding on Civic Exchange’s long-standing work in We would also like to thank Civic Exchange board urban planning, walkability and public open spaces, member Paul Zimmerman, Civic Exchange Walkability “Managing Vibrant Streets 2: Street Performance Policy expert Dr Louie Sieh and Walk DVRC’s Jennifer Walker in Hong Kong”, serves as a continuation to our previous Frisinger, who lent their time, expertise, and professional street management study, “Managing Vibrant Streets”. insights in peer-reviewing this report. Joyce Lau edited The 2018 study laid the groundwork for the current the manuscript, Ivy Yeung provided Chinese translations, work by analysing gaps in the Hong Kong regulatory and DESIGNORM created the cover design and layout. framework and the governing responsibilities of street activities. It specifically identified street performance The valuable input of interviewees comprises the as one of the most significant street management foundation of this study, and we are thus thankful challenges and source of conflict due to outdated for the contributions of the following people. Street regulations and ineffective administrative mechanisms. performers: Jay Lee, Pong Yat-ming, Heyman, Gustavo, “Managing Vibrant Streets 2” sets out to provide specific Anna, Mr. Kong, Roman, K.K., Yan Yan, Arrvin, recommendations on the development of a modern Ah Sun; District Council members: Cheng Lai-king, street performance management system suitable for Cherry Wong and Yu Tak-po; the office of Legislative Hong Kong. The most recent work is based on direct Councillor for the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and engagement of key local stakeholders who have shared Publication Functional Constituency: Ma Fung-kwok, the interests and potential for crafting a way forward, as well spokesperson of the Residents’ Concern as on the review of international experiences and best Group: Mary Melville; Hong Kong Federation of Youth practices. Groups: Michelle Ho; Manager for Corporate Social Responsibility of MTRC: Dorothy Lau; Senior Manager This interim report outlines how street performance for Corporate Social Responsibility of MTRC: Simpson policy ideas from overseas could be adapted to Hong Lo; the Leisure and Cultural Services Department; the Kong’s context. The stakeholder engagement shows that Food and Environmental Hygiene Department; the Hong there is ample room for change and an acute need for Kong Police Force; Walkability Task Force of the Transport a more proactive, comprehensive street performance Department as well as all other anonymous participants. management policy. Phase 2 of this work will include concrete recommendations on how such a street Street performers can play a pivotal role in enhancing management policy should be designed and applied. the cultural life of public space. With this work, Civic Exchange aims to establish a pragmatic consensus on This research (Project Number: 2019.C5.004.19C) has how street performance should be (re-)integrated into been funded by the Public Policy Research Funding public open spaces – balancing the needs of street Scheme of the Policy Innovation and Co-ordination performers with those of other public space users. Office of The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. We would like to express our sincere appreciation for its invaluable support. Evan Auyang Chairman of the Board, Civic Exchange

1 Contents

SECTION 1: HOW CAN STREET PERFORMANCE BE AN ASSET TO CITIES?...... 5 1.1 Street performance and urban liveability...... 5 1.2 Street performance as a form of popular entertainment: a cultural history...... 6 1.3 Street performance as a street and public space management issue...... 7 1.3.1 Failure of the Sai Yeung Choi Street pedestrianisation scheme...... 7 1.3.2 Social backlash against street performance...... 8 1.3.3 Further consequences for public spaces...... 8 1.4 Disjointed government initiatives...... 9

SECTION 2: OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY...... 12 2.1 Study objectives...... 12 2.2 Phase 1 – Stakeholder mapping and international case studies...... 13 2.2.1 Area of study...... 13 2.2.2 Stakeholder mapping...... 14 2.2.3 Desktop research: International case studies and local institutional context...... 15 2.3 Phase 2 – Delphi questionnaire (preview)...... 16

SECTION 3: BENEFITS, PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF STREET PERFORMANCE...... 17 3.1 Street performance and its spillover effects...... 17 3.2 Benefits of street performance...... 18 3.3 Street performance problems...... 20 3.3.1 Noise...... 20 3.3.2 Obstruction...... 22 3.3.3 Taste...... 22 3.4 Perceptions of street performer legitimacy in public space usage...... 24 3.5 Location...... 25 3.6 Minimising conflicts and maximising benefits...... 27

SECTION 4: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS...... 30 4.1 CLIP analysis explained...... 30 4.2 Collaboration and conflict...... 31 4.3 Stakeholder categorisation...... 33 4.3.1 Dominant...... 33 4.3.2 Influential...... 34 4.3.3 Forceful...... 35 4.3.4 Vulnerable...... 35 4.3.5 Marginal...... 36 4.3.6 Dormant...... 36 4.4 Challenges and opportunities in shifting power dynamics...... 37

SECTION 5: COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES...... 40 5.1 Licensing-based systems...... 41 5.1.1 Mechanism and rationale...... 41 5.1.2 Freedom of expression concerns...... 41 5.1.3 Application process and quality control...... 41 5.1.4 Pitch designation...... 42

2 5.1.5 Enforcement and cooperation...... 42 5.1.6 Licensing – takeaways...... 44

5.2 Spatial (zoning) approaches...... 44 5.2.1 Mechanism and rationale...... 44 5.2.2 Jurisdiction...... 45 5.2.3 Activity zoning at different scales...... 45 5.2.4 Implementation and unintended consequences...... 46 5.2.5 Spatial approaches – takeaways...... 46 5.3 Voluntary approaches...... 47 5.3.1 Mechanism and rationale...... 47 5.3.2 Voluntary codes of conduct...... 47 5.3.3 Management by street performers’ associations...... 48 5.3.4 Engagement for effective implementation...... 48 5.3.5 Voluntary approaches – takeaways...... 49 5.4 Commonalities, differences and relevance to Hong Kong...... 49

SECTION 6: CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN HONG KONG’S INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT...... 51 6.1 The legal context...... 51 6.1.1 Legal constraints and opportunities in adopting a licensing approach...... 51 6.1.2 Legal constraints and opportunities in implementing spatial (zoning) approaches...... 53 6.1.3 Legal constraints and opportunities in implementing voluntary approaches...... 53 6.2 The administrative context...... 54 6.2.1 Administrative constraints and opportunities in implementing a licensing approach...... 55 6.2.2 Administrative constraints and opportunities in implementing a spatial (zoning) approach...... 55 6.2.3 Administrative constraints and opportunities in implementing voluntary approaches..... 56

SECTION 7: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS...... 57

APPENDIX 1:...... 58 Table of interviewees...... 58

APPENDIX 2:...... 59 Interest/power/legitimacy stakeholder categorisations...... 59

APPENDIX 3:...... 63 Summaries of selected overseas examples of street performance policies...... 63 Licensing approaches: Taipei, Singapore and Melbourne...... 63 Spatial regulation approaches: New York City, Prague...... 66 Voluntary approaches: Bath...... 68 Mixed approaches: London (boroughs of Camden, Kensington & Chelsea, and Westminster)...... 69

ENDNOTES...... 72

3 List of TABLES AND Figures

Table 1 Potential benefits of street performance...... 18 Table 2 Problems due to street performance...... 20 Table 3 Strategies for reducing noise conflict...... 27 Table 4 Strategies for reducing conflict due to pedestrian obstruction...... 28 Table 5 Strategies for raising the quality of street performance...... 28 Table 6 Strategies for strengthening the legitimacy of street performers in public spaces...... 29 Table 7 Stakeholder collaboration and conflict matrix...... 32 Table 8 Summary of street performance management methods across case study cities...... 40

Figure 1 Open Stage scheme requirements...... 10 Figure 2 Timeline of street performance events...... 11 Figure 3 The mechanics of street performance...... 18 Figure 4 Stakeholder power/interest/legitimacy categories...... 31 Figure 5 Legislation affecting street performance...... 52

Map 1 Main area of study...... 13

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CLIP Conflict/Cooperation, Legitimacy, Influence and Power CSR Corporate Social Responsibility CUHK Chinese University of Hong Kong DC District Council EPD Environmental Protection Department FEHD Food and Environmental Hygiene Department HAB Home Affairs Bureau HAD HKFYG Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups HKOTC Hong Kong Office of Tobacco Control HKPF Hong Kong Police Force HYD LCSD Leisure and Cultural Services Department MTRC Mass Transit Railway Corporation NGO Non-Governmental Organisations POPS Privately Owned Public Space PSPO Public Space Protection Order SPAs Street Performer Associations TD Transport Department TFL Transport For London TPPE Temporary Places of Public Entertainment (License) WKCD West Cultural District WKCDA Cultural District Authority

4 1 How can street performance be an asset to cities?

1.1 Street performance and of “affective engineering” to promote public urban liveability spaces with a certain kind of “buzz”,7 but also to ensure that this “buzz” is compatible with 8 While urban placemaking has traditionally focused consumerism and city marketing objectives. on physical design, public space management also While these policies have sometimes been matters. Effective public space management is criticised for excessively sanitising public space, defined as “the set of processes and practices that particularly when management is contracted out attempt to ensure that public space can fulfil all its to property developers and private management 9 legitimate roles, whilst managing the interactions companies, if well-balanced they can help ensure between, and impacts of, those multiple functions the usability of public spaces to the broadest range in a way that is acceptable to its users”.1 of stakeholders.

Informal activities like street performance can Placemaking is part of the Hong Kong enhance a city’s liveability, sociability, culture and Government’s built environment objectives in local economy by introducing dynamism into urban the Development Bureau’s “Hong Kong 2030+” environments temporarily transforming the way territorial development strategy, which proposes people interact with public spaces.2 They can make to “reinvent public space (e.g. public parks and spaces more convivial by “promoting spontaneous, streets) in terms of functionality, quality, design, democratic, intimate encounters”.3 However, if accessibility, provision and management”, poorly managed, they can detract from public “enhance our unique city character” and “promote 10 space’s attractiveness, comfort, functionality and a sense of place”. In late 2017, the Transport environmental quality, especially in a high-density Department (TD) also commenced a Consultancy environment like Hong Kong’s. Study on Enhancing Walkability in Hong Kong with four study themes, “make it connected”, “make Historically, street performance has often been it safe”, “make it enjoyable” and “make it smart” treated as a nuisance,4 including in Hong Kong (Walk HK, 2018). Placemaking plays a role in where the Summary Offences Ordinance, dating improving walkability by enhancing the quality of from 1949, classifies unauthorised musical pedestrian spaces. performances on streets as a public nuisance alongside public defecation, driving recklessly on However, Hong Kong lacks a holistic approach footpaths, and keeping dangerous and annoying towards street performance and street dogs.5 management more generally, relying on a piecemeal approach based on various pieces 11 However, some city governments try to strike a of nuisance and public hygiene legislation. balance between nuisance prevention and active Placemaking initiatives to date have focused on promotion in order to capture the benefits of physical infrastructure such as traffic calming, street performance6. This can be seen as a form urban greening, footbridges, elevators and rain

5 HOW CAN STREET PERFORMANCE BE AN ASSET TO CITIES?

shades. There is also a mismatch of scale between viewpoints and to explore possible ways forward. problem and action: street performance impacts Before delving into the objectives and methodology specific localities at a neighbourhood or district of the study, the section below will examine the scale, but changes in policy can only be made background and context of street performance in at the city-wide level. The Government has also Hong Kong. cited Hong Kong’s complex urban and institutional environment and lack of consensus on street performance policy as obstacles. As the then- 1.2 Street performance as a form Secretary for Home Affairs Mr. Lau Kong-wah said of popular entertainment: a to the Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2018: cultural history “Hong Kong is a small place with a high population, Street performance was part of Hong Kong’s daily and is one of the most densely-populated cities community and social life until the later part of the in the world. There may be far fewer suitable 20th century, including singing, Cantonese opera, locations for street performance as compared martial arts, storytelling, and trained animal tricks.15 to other places. Even if a registration / licensing A major site for street performance was dai dat dei ( mechanism is introduced, the public may hold 大笪地), literally “big piece of land”, a night market different views on designating performance space with hawkers, dai pai dongs, fortune tellers and in densely populated areas or streets (such as entertainers on the site of what is now Hollywood pedestrian precincts). In fact, regulation of street Road Park.16 It moved to the Sheung Wan waterfront performance involves a wide range of complicated in the 1970s, where it remained until it was shut issues relating to content of the performance, down for the Central-Wanchai Reclamation project coverage, standard as well as its implementation. in the early 1990s.17 Other major sites of street It involves territory-wide considerations as well entertainment included Temple Street night market as the actual situation in districts and legal and in Sham Shui Po.18 considerations.” – Lau Kong-wah, 7 November 2018.12 Street performance started to decline in the 1970s and 1980s with the spread of television, rapid A background brief for the Legislative Council Panel urban redevelopment,19 and a concerted effort by on Home Affairs further stated several concerns the Government to clear the streets of informal over the creation of a scheme to require street activities to better control public hygiene and free performers to apply for licenses, including the up space for vehicular traffic.20 These efforts were “need to balance the demands of different users seen as essential to the city’s modernisation, but and the views of local residents”, as well as the fundamentally altered the city’s public life as shared possibility that any such scheme might be “subject entertainment in public spaces was displaced to to challenge on grounds that it represented a private venues. violation of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the Basic Law”.13 Street performance re-emerged on a significant scale when TD’s pedestrianisation programme Street performance has not been a high enough was implemented in early 2000,21 which closed priority for the Government to expend political off selected urban streets to traffic on a part- capital on forging consensus, overcoming time or full-time basis. While the programme was constraints, and developing more comprehensive intended to ease congested pavements and improve solutions. As a result, significant levels of nuisance pedestrian safety, it unintentionally provided have been allowed to persist, resulting in the opportunities for a plethora of recreational, social, closure of or imposition of additional restrictions and commercial activities to flourish.22 Street on public spaces, and undermined community performers began to appear in busy commercial support for pedestrian zones (see Section 1.3).14 spots like Causeway Bay, outside Lan Kwai Fong This research project therefore attempts to (in Central), and in the Sai Yeung Choi Street South address some of these obstacles by conducting pedestrian zone in Mong Kok, where their numbers a stakeholder mapping exercise in order to gain gradually expanded. a more nuanced understanding of stakeholder

6 While the precise number is unknown, a street and protesters. The space fulfilled a complex performer census conducted by the Chinese and chaotic array of purposes, many of which University of Hong Kong (CUHK) in 2015 estimated conflicted with the needs of nearby residents that there were around 300 active performers.23 and shopkeepers. By 2013, the Yau Tsim Mong The overwhelming majority (90 per cent) were District Council (DC) was receiving over 1,000 musicians or singers, 7 per cent performed dance, complaints a year. Then-DC member Mr. Chow 2 per cent acrobatics, and 1 per cent theatre.24 Chun-fai argued that the original purpose of the 95 per cent of the performers were classified as pedestrianisation scheme had been derailed by local residents,25 but foreign performers such as lack of management.29,30 Mr. Wally, a Japanese musician, can be regularly seen in Hong Kong. The re-emergence of street As Sai Yeung Choi Street was legally a road, no performance is indicates that it continues to meet government department possessed the authority some social needs into the 21st century. While to manage street performance activities except there may be nostalgia value for older performers through the enforcement of the Noise Control and audiences, the CUHK census found that over Ordinance and related nuisance legislation. 60 per cent of its respondents were below the age These efforts were of limited effectiveness. Chow of 25. 26 therefore lobbied to “shorten the weekly opening days of the Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct as soon However, the pedestrianisation programme led as possible…in order to allay public resentment”31, to the emergence of unanticipated, and therefore with further demand to implement “reasonable inadequately managed street management planning and management of street performance conflicts. activities and the demarcation of areas dedicated for street performances.” This decision to reduce the operating hours to weekends was 1.3 Street performance as a street implemented in 2014.32 and public space management The number of complaints saw an initial drop to issue less than 700 in 2014, but rose again to 1,232 by 2016,33 as reduction in operating hours led to 1.3.1 Failure of the Sai Yeung Choi Street higher intensity use on weekends (this averages out pedestrianisation scheme to 23 complaints per weekend). The proliferation The case of the Sai Yeung Choi Street South of illegal busking/karaoke pitch, rental services and pedestrian zone in Mong Kok illustrates commercialised street singing groups, suspected institutional paralysis in public space management to be influenced by organised crime, added to the caused by complicated jurisdictional and legal gaps apparent chaos and poor image of the precinct.34 in responsibility. The zone was implemented in 2000,27 initially operating Mondays to Saturdays Yau Tsim Mong DC members, who lacked the between 4 p.m. and midnight, and Sundays and authority to enact any new street management public holidays between noon to midnight. Its measures themselves, continued to demand stated objective was to “help enhance road safety that the Government either impose a licensing and improve the pedestrian environment as well”28 scheme, 35 or abolish the pedestrianisation scheme by improving air and noise pollution, walkability altogether.36 Eventually, on 4 August 2018, Sai and local economies in central urban locations. Yeung Choi Street South pedestrian precinct was officially abolished. This resulted in a “notable Over the years, the street became increasingly decrease” in complaints in Mong Kok.37 According saturated with street performers as well as a wide to the Police, in the first half of 2019, the whole of variety of other activities including commercial Mong Kok received an average of 21 complaints a promoters, telecoms sales booths, hawkers, week,38 but spread out through the week instead polaroid photographers, pull-up banners and other of concentrated on weekends. However, the street standing advertisements, political campaigners performers relocated elsewhere.

7 HOW CAN STREET PERFORMANCE BE AN ASSET TO CITIES?

1.3.2 Social backlash against street performer of whom the speaker disapproves on performance grounds of conduct and appearance. For example, When the pedestrian precinct was first closed, two female karaoke singers interviewed insisted the performers initially relocated to Tsim Sha Tsui, that they were not dai mas because they were where they provoked brief but intense conflicts locals, not from the Mainland, and because they with residents, public space users, and existing were there to sing, not just to make tips from street performers. While complaints in Mong old men.44 However, one recounted having been Kok had focused primarily on noise and nuisance, shouted at by anti-dai ma protesters in the past.45 in Tsim Sha Tsui the performers also became a The conflation of antisocial behaviour with dai ma lightning rod for broader socio-political conflicts,39 groups is also problematic because the gendered culminating in public protests in August 2018.40 term automatically excludes male performers, These clashes once again pushed most of the regardless of their conduct. performers to relocate to the Central waterfront. In the first half of 2019, Yau Tsim (a Police 1.3.3 Further consequences for public spaces administrative unit encompassing and Tuen Mun Park had become another area of Tsim Sha Tsui) received 3-4 complaints a week, conflict over dai ma group performances. As part while Central received about 12 per week.41 of a trial programme launched in 2006, two self- entertainment zones in Tuen Mun Park were set The public backlash focused heavily on a up for Cantonese opera performance groups, in stigmatised subset of street performers referred to addition to the park amphitheatre and a selection as dai ma（ 大 媽 ）, loosely defined as middle-aged of other venues across the district.46 By 2014, women singing and dancing to karaoke backing complaints about dai ma performers were being tracks, appealing primarily to older male audiences. raised in the Tuen Mun DC,47 centring around Increasing numbers of dai ma groups established excessive noise, failure to respect park rules, and themselves in Mong Kok during the last few years the solicitation of monetary contributions.48 In of the pedestrian precinct’s operation, pushing July 2019, anti-dai ma “Reclaim Tuen Mun Park” out other, mostly younger, performers. Many （光復屯門公園）protests broke out, leading to viewed them as unwelcome additions to Hong the abolition of the self-entertainment zones.49 In Kong’s cultural landscape due to their perceived May 2020, the Government proposed to amend lack of artistic sophistication and the suggestive the Pleasure Grounds Regulation which governs nature of some of their performances. Antisocial parks managed by the Leisure and Cultural performance behaviours were also attributed to Services Department (LCSD) in order impose them, including blasting speakers at high volume heavier penalties, enhance enforcement flexibility, to drown out rival performers, pitch hogging and implement more active management of (ba dei poon 霸地盤) by placing equipment or performance in public parks. The fact that parks sending proxies to claim spaces or “pitches” many already fell under an existing piece of legislation hours in advance,42 soliciting money lai( see 利 made legislative amendment more feasible from 是) from audiences, and refusing to participate in the government’s point of view. Fines for violating pre-existing pitch sharing arrangements among the Pleasure Grounds Amendment would be established performers on the Tsim Sha Tsui increased, non-park users would be accepted as waterfront. However, antipathy towards dai ma witnesses in order to make it easier to prosecute was in part rooted in prejudices against Mainland violators, and performers would be banned from Chinese immigrants and resentment towards the accepting any donations in LCSD-managed parks.50 growing influence of the Mainland’s culture in Additionally, the LCSD would be empowered to Hong Kong.43 post signage stating house rules for performers.51 The Government proposed that the LCSD would The dai ma label in itself is vague and problematic make reference to Environmental Protection as it can be stretched to cover any female Department (EPD) decibel level guidelines when

8 approving events, equip park staff with decibel 1.4 Disjointed government meters, and consult with DCs on locally acceptable initiatives noise standards. While more active management is needed, the increased restrictions may once Hong Kong lacks a comprehensive street again prompt performers to relocate (see Section 6 performance policy, leaving it to be governed by for discussion). a number of general-purpose ordinances against noise and obstruction. The Government has At the time of writing, many of the former Mong taken a hands-off approach of tolerating street Kok and Tuen Mun Park performers have relocated performance rather than incorporating it into an to the Central waterfront during evenings and overall cultural or placemaking policy. weekends, mainly near Piers 7 and 8. Unlike public parks, the waterfront is made up of a There are three government-run street patchwork of land managed by the LCSD and the performance permit schemes in operation, but TD/Highways Department (HYD), and the Home they are limited in scope and effectiveness. The Affairs Department (HAD), which makes unified first is a one-off, discretionary permit from the management more difficult. This development has Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) to play musical produced some concern among local stakeholders instruments on the street under the Summary such as residents and DC members, who have Offences Ordinance.56 An online application expressed fears about this area becoming “another form was created in response to a 2015 High Mong Kok”. This resulted in reduced DC support for Court ruling, which criticised the lack of a clear the TD’s recently proposed walkability pilot project application process.57 However, the same ruling to implement part-time pedestrianisation schemes also made the provision unenforceable, stating in the cultural precinct around Hollywood Road, that under the Basic Law, Hong Kongers have a 53 Lyndhurst Terrace and SoHo (all near Central), right to engage in artistic and cultural activities in as well as scepticism of a proposal to partially public spaces.58 The legal ramifications are further pedestrianise Des Voeux Road Central put forward discussed in Section 6. by a coalition of non-profits and urban planners. The permit system is therefore a pro-forma Meanwhile, in Causeway Bay, the owner of the process. Applications for each performance Times Square mall took legal action to exclude must be submitted 14 working days in advance, street performers from its privately managed and there is no right of appeal if rejected. ground-floor piazza which is reserved for There are no explicit guidelines or criteria for pedestrian circulation and passive recreation performance locations, times, noise levels, safety, under the building’s Deed of Dedication. When preventing obstruction, etc. although license some Mong Kok performers relocated there, the conditions may be imposed on a discretionary developer sought legal injunctions against long- basis. As the process is inconvenient and the time performer Jay Lee (who had been tolerated law is unenforceable, street performers have no previously), winning a permanent ban in March incentive to apply – just 48 applications were filed 2020 after Lee was forced to drop his defence in 2014, 60 in 2015, and 64 in 2016, all of which 54 due to lack of resources. The High Court ruled were approved.59 that street performance violated the mall’s Deed 55 of Dedication. Lee fears a further narrowing The other two extant permit schemes were an of spaces for performers, worrying that other attempt to provide authorised venues for street developers will take the case as a precedent to performers in government-managed public spaces. exclude performers from other privately managed In July 2010, the Home Affairs Bureau (HAB) public spaces, and that negative public perceptions launched the “Open Stage” scheme, offering three of street performers will be reinforced by their performance venues located at Sha Tin Town Hall, legal defeat. Kwai Tsing Theatre, and the Hong Kong Cultural

9 HOW CAN STREET PERFORMANCE BE AN ASSET TO CITIES?

Centre in Tsim Sha Tsui. 60 Performers had to did not actively solicit them, they were prohibited audition in order to qualify.61 However, due to low from displaying merchandise for sale or distributing participation, by January 2012 Sha Tin Town Hall fliers.63,64 In the five-year period between 2013 and was the only venue still available.62 Performers 2017, only a total of 62 applications were received, of criticised the venues on offer for having low which 32 were approved, and 27 actually registered pedestrian flow. Additionally, while performers to perform.65 were allowed to accept donations as long as they

FIGURE 1 Open Stage scheme requirements

According to the Open Stage scheme, applicants …

must be 18 or over must keep the must not occupy an may use battery- may perform on and a legal resident number of area of more than powered amplifiers Saturdays, Sundays of HKSAR performers to 8 3m x 5m and public holidays people at most 5m only 18+ 3m

may accept voluntary must not sell any must pass an audition must not carry out contributions but merchandise before being allowed any acts that are must not actively ask to perform different from those for contributions performed during the audition

Source: Open Stage Application Form, LCSD

However, while the Open Stage Scheme was In July 2015, the West Kowloon Cultural District discontinued at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre, (WKCD) launched its own Street Performance the site’s management continues to allow street Scheme (WKCD Scheme hereafter) in order to performers to use parts of the waterfront “promote appreciation of and participation in the promenade on an ad-hoc basis under its own arts”69 and “encourage street performers to make house rules. In order to balance the interests of use of the public space and liven up the park”70. public space users, outdoor venue hirers, and Applicants were required to audition for a one- street performers, the LCSD requires performances year permit that authorised them to perform at to stay within 10 dBA of background noise levels, one of eight available pitches in the park. License making reference to the EPD’s guidelines for conditions allow performers to perform between performance venues.66 Their security guards are 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and stay at the same pitch for equipped with decibel meters67 and, according to up to two hours within a six-hour period. They are an LCSD representative, have formed a positive required to display their permits while performing, rapport with the performers there.68 However, keep their volume to 85 dBA within two metres, as performers are banned from accepting and avoid obstructing public spaces. Performance donations (see Section 3.4 for further discussion of groups must contain ten people or fewer. Small donations), most opt to use the unregulated space battery-powered amplifiers, but not generator- outside the Star Ferry terminal instead. powered sound systems, are permitted.71

10 However, the WKCD Scheme is not popular leading to a backlash that has curtailed access among street performers as the location suffers to or imposed increasing restrictions on public from a lack of footfall.72 Some of the performers spaces. Government-initiated busking schemes interviewed for this project also complained to date have not managed to meaningfully that it was too inaccessible by public transport, address the situation, as they are too limited in saying that it was too inconvenient to carry their scope and unattractive to performers. Although equipment from the Kowloon MTR station.73 there have been discussions74 about the need to offer more suitable performance venues for In sum, street performance is legal, but not street performers, there needs to be cross- actively managed. As a result, the overall image bureau action to address the problem, provide of street performance has been tarnished by the joined-up thinking, and establish clear lines of unfavourable behaviour of some performers, accountability.

FIGURE 2 Timeline of street performance events

2000 2008-2010 2010 2012 Sai Yeung Choi Acid attacks: JULY A travel-busker interest JANUARY Street South in 3 separate Open Stage pilot scheme is group “Let’s Start” is Sha Tin Town Hall becomes incidents, launched founded by traveller- becomes the only long- pedestrianised corrosive liquid busker Pong Yat-ming term venue left for the 7 days a week is dropped on SEPTEMBER Open Stage Scheme pedestrians in Sai Mr Funny wins the court case (from the original three Yeung Choi St. S. on the grounds of freedom to venues) engage in artistic expression and cultural activities under Article 34 of Basic Law

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 LegCo meeting Pedestrianisation of Sai West Kowloon Hong Kong based LegCo meeting on on street Yeung Choi Street South Cultural District busker concern the management performance (between Argyle St. and Authority launches group City Echo is of the Mong Kok activities Dundas St.) is restricted to Street Performance founded by musician Pedestrian Precinct 4-10pm on Saturdays and Scheme in the park and part time busker noon-10pm on Sundays Jay Lee and public holidays

2018 2020 29 JULY NOVEMBER Yau Tsim Mong DC Tuen Mun protests against member Yu Tak-po leads Sai Yeung Choi Street South LegCo meeting addresses an dai ma karaoke entertainers an experiment on a small pedestrianisation scheme is agenda put forward by Ma Jay Lee loses the court case section of Sai Yeung Choi cancelled at 10pm on 29 July Fung-kwok, LegCo member, on regulation and promotion due to a lack of legal funds Street with participant Street performers relocate of street performances for defence performers, e.g. Mong Kok elsewhere, mainly the Tsim Roman Sha Tsui waterfront Court order places an Hong Kong Times Square indefinite ban on street files lawsuit against City 11 AUGUST performance at Times Echo, seeking injunction Anti-dai ma protests take Square against performers place in Tsim Sha Tsui

11 2 Objectives and Methodology

2.1 Study objectives The second major objective of the first phase is to examine and compare selected overseas case The objective of this study is to assess the studies in street performance management. While acceptability and feasibility of different policy public discussion in the Hong Kong media has options for street performance. In order to do this, focused on the possibility of introducing a licensing it is necessary to map and analyse stakeholder system, cities worldwide have implemented a wide opinions to understand their concerns and the range of approaches. The comparative analysis power dynamics among them. This will provide in- aims to identify features of successful street depth local context to define problems and identify performance management policies and common constraints. This study also learns from overseas mistakes to avoid. After an analysis of Hong examples by examining international case studies Kong’s institutional constraints and opportunities, in street performance management. Potential approaches with potential to be adapted to Hong solutions gleaned from international examples Kong’s institutional and social context will be used and interviews with local stakeholders will then to develop a menu of policy options which will be be tested with stakeholders in order to evaluate presented to the stakeholders in Phase 2 of the their acceptability. The goal is to identify areas of project. compromise and policies that are locally feasible. The objective of the second phase is to conduct a The study consists of two phases. This report, survey questionnaire with the same stakeholders which comprises the first phase, will focus on using the Delphi Method (see methodology stakeholder mapping. The objective is to identify below). The survey will present the stakeholders the key players, map out their concerns, and with a range of policy options in order to assess analyse their relationships and power dynamics, their acceptability and feasibility to different including the ways in which they interact with groups. Stakeholders’ underlying assumptions regulations and officialdom. This enables a clearer and their attitudes towards differing opinions will and more nuanced understanding of how different be probed in order to identify areas of possible stakeholders perceive and define the problem, in consensus, or conversely, irreconcilable difference. order to identify the issues that must be addressed This second-stage analysis will inform final policy in order to alleviate their concerns, or change recommendations. their minds. Additionally, a fuller understanding of the relationships and power dynamics between different stakeholders will be used to inform policy proposals, including any measures needed to address these dynamics to make the policies more effective.

12 2.2 Phase 1 – Stakeholder mapping the Star Ferry pier and bus terminus, with a few and international case studies using the promenade outside the Hong Kong Cultural Centre and some on the opposite end of The research methodology for Phase 1 of this the Avenue of Stars towards Tsim Sha Tsui East. project will involve a combination of desktop As these pitches were quickly oversaturated research and stakeholder interviews and resulting in conflicts, most moved on to the Central engagement, outlined below. waterfront promenade near the Star Ferry Pier and the Observation Wheel shortly afterwards. 2.2.1 Area of study Central’s waterfront also received an influx of performers after the closure of Tuen Mun Park’s This research is focused in two Hong Kong districts self-entertainment area in mid-2019. – Yau Tsim Mong (on the Kowloon peninsula) and Central & Western (on Hong Kong Island). Aside from these two hot spots, Mong Kok and They were chosen because they are busy urban Yau Ma Tei retain a number of smaller pitches, areas that attract significant numbers of street mainly outside Langham Place, Mong Kok East MTR performers. As noted above, both districts were station’s bus terminus, and Temple Street. Central affected by the cancellation of the Mong Kok sees a number of performers on the footbridge pedestrian zone in mid-2018. Performers displaced network, particularly on the stretch linking the from Mong Kok initially gathered on the Tsim International Finance Centre 2 with the Star Ferry Sha Tsui waterfront, concentrated mainly around pier, and outside Lan Kwai Fong.

MAP 1 Main area of study

Mong Kok

West Kowloon Cultural District Art Park Tsim Sha Tsui East Waterfront Promenade Tsim Sha Tsui Star Ferry

Central Ferry Piers 7 and 8 IFC2-Star Ferry Footbridge

Lan Kwai Fong

13 Objectives and Methodology

As the waterfront promenade on both sides of potential interviewees in a process of snowballing. Victoria Harbour becomes further developed in the 28 individuals were interviewed in person or by future, it may draw increasing numbers of street telephone between January and April of 2020. A list performers. It is worthwhile to explore whether of these individuals and organisations can be found waterfront spaces can satisfy the demand for in Appendix 1. They include: street performance while keeping nuisance away from residents of highly built-up urban areas. 11 street performers ranging from their 20s Owners of major waterfront properties may to their 60s (including 2 founders of artistic also have an interest in the regulation of street concern groups) performance activities near their buildings. 1 business chamber representing retail, food and beverage outlets Additionally, the TD has recently proposed to 2 neighbourhood concern groups implement small-scale, part-time pedestrianisation schemes in the cultural precinct around Hollywood 3 DC members and 1 Legislative Councillor’s aide Road, Lyndhurst Terrace and Soho (all near 2 representatives of a property developer Central) in the future, which raises worries among 3 representatives of Food and Environmental stakeholders such as DC members and local Hygiene Department (FEHD) (Yau Tsim & residents about creating “another Mong Kok”. Mong Kok) Central therefore serves as a useful test case to explore what types of policies might be sufficient 1 representative of the Cultural Services Branch of the LCSD to alleviate concerns or shift thinking about pedestrianisation schemes. 1 representative of the Walkability Task Force of the Transport Department (TD) 2.2.2 Stakeholder mapping 2 representatives of the Mass Transit Railway In the first phase of the project, key stakeholders Corporation (MTRC) were identified and engaged in a preliminary 1 representative of the Hong Kong Federation of round of semi-structured interviews in order to Youth Groups (HKFYG) gain a better understanding of how they perceive and define the street performance issue, their Additionally, the HKPF and another developer agreed interests, relationships with other stakeholders, to participate in the study by providing written ability to influence the situation, and any personal answers to questions in lieu of a live interview. experiences they have had with the issue. Key stakeholders are those who are engaged in, have External circumstances required some changes in possible influence over, or are affected by street methodology. While the original intention was to performance. conduct the preliminary interviews face-to-face, due to the global COVID-19 outbreak which began Civil society and private sector stakeholders to impact Hong Kong in late January, most of the were identified based on background research interviews were conducted through conference calls. on concerned and interested parties. Street performers, residents, businesses as well as Some potential stakeholders who were approached neighbourhood concern groups and DCs have declined participation in the study or did not openly expressed their concerns about street respond to enquiries, including some private performance in the media and other channels. developers, DC members, and some relevant Public sector stakeholders were identified government bodies including the HAD and West based on government departments’ areas of Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA). responsibility over street performers in policy, regulatory or venue management terms. Most of Study participants were given the option to the interviewees were recruited by email, except participate in the study using their real names street performers who were approached in or anonymously. Some participants opted to be Central and Tsim Sha Tsui where they performed. identified by their given names or surnames only. Interviewees were also asked to recommend other Those participating anonymously are referred to

14 under pseudonyms or as unnamed spokespersons desktop research is supplemented by interviews of their organisations. In some cases, details of with experts in the selected cities in order their location and employment will be obscured to provide more in-depth on-the-ground in the report to preserve privacy. Permission was understanding. These experts include: obtained to record the interviews for research purposes, and the recordings will be deleted within • Ho Cheng-I, Director of Taiwan Street Arts and six months after the end of the project. Culture Development Association • Nick Broad and Liliana Maz, co-founders of The These initial interviews are used to complete a Busking Project, an international non-profit Conflict/Cooperation, Legitimacy, Influence & organisation that promotes busking through Power (CLIP) stakeholder map.75 A CLIP analysis advocacy, technology and research and systematically describes and categorise the opportunities relationships between different stakeholders • David Gray, a street performer involved in the surrounding a problem in order to gain insights street performance advocacy organisation into the dynamics and power relationships that “Keep Streets Live” in the UK may influence the outcome of a project or policy. • Jonathan Robinson, a former programme Stakeholders are assessed in terms of their director of MusicTank, a music industry think cooperation or conflict with each other, the degree tank in the UK to which others recognise their legitimacy, how their interests are currently affected and what The objective at this stage is to gather a variety of they may stand to gain or lose through policy examples in order to gain a broader understanding interventions, and their level of power or authority of different approaches. In Hong Kong, public in the situation. discussion of street performance management focuses mostly on the idea of implementing a This stakeholder analysis provides a deeper licensing system similar to that in Taiwan.76 Cities understanding of their level of involvement, worldwide have implemented a range of different investment or influence in the situation, and policies. The selected case studies include cities identifies areas of communication, cooperation with: and conflict (or lack thereof). This is used to inform the range of policy options to be carried into the • a licensing approach (Taipei, Singapore, next stage of the study by helping to adapt them Melbourne) to the local social and institutional context. For • zoning-based approaches (New York City, example, it might be found through this process Prague) that street performers do not all share the same • voluntary approaches (Coventry, Bath) priorities and interests, and therefore should be • mixed approaches (London) characterised as two or more different groups. The analysis also helps to identify areas of common These approaches will be described and compared interest and areas of conflict. It may suggest in order to identify successful elements and less the need for remedial measures to address the successful elements. concerns of a particularly influential stakeholder that may act as a sticking point, identify The case studies examine and analyse regulations, opportunities or obstacles to collaboration, or mechanisms of implementation, the relationship identify a need to engage more deeply with between enforcement agencies and street stakeholders that are heavily affected but which performers, and the institutional and social have little formal influence. contexts in which they are situated. Governments do not operate in isolation but are situated within 2.2.3 Desktop research: International case societies, and the implementation of policies studies and local institutional context depends not only on formal directives carried out Through desktop research, street performance by government employees, but on relationships management policies from selected international with non-state actors like corporations, civil examples are examined. Where possible, the society groups and individuals, and the ways in

15 Objectives and Methodology

which these parties understand the problems anonymously with the participants and probes and justify government actions to each other and the issue in greater depth, allowing participants to themselves.77 Social norms, attitudes towards to consider the views of others before forming street performance, views of the government their own. The process is repeated a few times and its enforcement agents, and framings of the (usually two to five) until a consensus emerges.78 purpose of street performance policy will affect This study will use two stages, carried out through how policies work in real life. It is necessary to pre-arranged telephone interviews, in order to understand the broader context in order to assess minimise participant fatigue as they will have how well overseas policies might translate to a already taken part in the preliminary interview. Hong Kong context. A Policy Delphi is a variation of the technique The international case studies are supplemented by which handles complex policy issues involving an analysis of Hong Kong’s institutional constraints interested stakeholders rather than experts dealing and opportunities built upon Civic Exchange’s with technical problems. In such cases it is not preceding study on general street management always possible or desirable to promote consensus, issues, “Managing Vibrant Streets”. An overview however the process aims to produce informed of existing laws and regulations, Hong Kong’s opinions in a systematic way so as to ensure administrative and political structure as they that all options are considered, to estimate the pertain to street performance will be provided impact of any particular option, and to estimate in order to assess how the existing institutional the acceptability of any particular option before context may constrain or offer channels to carry recommendations are made.79 out different hypothetical policy approaches. In the first questionnaire, participants will be asked Findings from the stakeholder analysis, to rate the importance of various policy objectives, international case studies, and local institutional and the validity of diverse arguments related to analysis will be synthesised to inform a menu of street performance drawn from the interviews. broad policy approaches which could plausibly be They will then be asked to rate the helpfulness implemented in Hong Kong. These ideas will be and feasibility of various policy options derived presented to stakeholders in Phase 2 of the study from the stakeholder interviews and international in order to assess their importance, helpfulness examples.80 and feasibility. The second questionnaire will prompt participants to take each other’s views into account. The 2.3 Phase 2 – Delphi questionnaire degree of consensus or difference in respondents’ (preview) answers will be analysed to identify the viewpoints or policy options on which the participants’ Phase 2 of the study will be conducted in the views grew closer together or drifted further second half of 2020 after the publication of this apart. These findings will then inform final policy interim report. This phase will re-engage with recommendations by identifying areas where the same stakeholders interviewed in Phase 1, deliberation and understanding is likely to produce this time through a structured questionnaire consensus and areas where disagreement is likely instrument using a modified Policy Delphi to be intractable. technique. The Delphi Technique was originally developed as a methodology to build consensus A clear understanding of stakeholders’ views, among a panel of experts through an iterative underlying assumptions, and concerns, and the process of surveys which asks participants identification of areas where consensus might be to provide opinions on an issue or proposal. built, would aid substantially in the creation of Responses are analysed and used to create a realistic policies that are perceived as acceptable new questionnaire which shares the results and fair by as many stakeholders as possible.

16 3 Benefits, Problems and Opportunities of Street Performance

In order to test the feasibility and acceptability of 3.1 Street performance and its different policy solutions, it is first necessary to find spillover effects out how the problems are understood by different stakeholders and to map out the relationships Street performance in the broadest sense is between them. This report uses a CLIP analysis to defined as act of carrying out live entertainment map out stakeholder power relationships based on in a public place. The activity requires at least one four factors: ongoing relations of Collaboration/ performer and one or more audience members. 81 Conflict, Legitimacy, Interests and Power . The It takes place in public spaces where performers analysis is based on initial-round stakeholder can be seen and heard in passing, enabling chance interviews supplemented by document research encounters between performers and potential including government records and news media audience members. reports. Surrounding the primary interaction between This section deals with the “Interest” portion of street performer and audience member (in CLIP by examining the substance of stakeholder which the audience member is entertained and interests. It defines the actual and potential the performer receives appreciation or money), benefits and problems of street performance street performance can generate spillover effects experienced by different stakeholders by – i.e. benefits and problems for third parties. examining their viewpoints, identifying their Figure 3 below outlines the mechanics of street concerns, and analysing their beliefs about street performance, showing the elements that enable performance. In doing so, opportunities for street performance to take place and the spillover reducing conflict and increasing mutual benefits effects it creates. can be identified.

Section 4 will deal with the bulk of the CLIP analysis by examining collaboration/conflict relationships and the distribution and degree of power, interest and legitimacy among stakeholders.

17 Benefits, Problems and Opportunities of Street Performance

FIGURE 3 The mechanics of street performance

LOCATION Positive (accessibility, visibility) • Increased economic value • Increased cultural vibrancy • Optimised public space usage

reward EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS PERFORMANCE AUDIENCE entertainment

Negative • Noise • Obstruction • Objectionable displays

3.2 Benefits of street performance and generating opportunities for convivial social interaction. Beyond these general benefits, As noted in Section 1, street performance has different stakeholders can derive specific the potential to benefit urban quality of life by benefits from street performance. Table 1 below enlivening public space, temporarily creating summarises the potential benefits, as perceived by new interactions between people and space, stakeholders.

TABLE 1 Potential benefits of street performance

Stakeholder group Potential benefits from street performance Street performers Opportunity for creative expression Opportunity to develop skills Seeking public appreciation and recognition Enjoyment, friendship, self-entertainment Earning money Retailers Increase in customer footfall Destination marketing, tourism promotion Developers Reputational and marketing benefits through high quality placemaking Meeting corporate social responsibility goals through support for local community building Increase in customer footfall for commercial properties Neighbourhood Enjoying a more vibrant urban environment concern groups Enhancement of neighbourhood image Affordable and accessible culture and entertainment Opportunities for social interaction Government Promotion of local arts and culture (LCSD, WKCDA) Increasing public exposure to culture Promotion of tourism City marketing, international reputation DCs Potential public support

18 However, the realisation of these benefits New York City.83 Ms. A, representing a non-profit depends on whether street performance is being business chamber, saw unauthorised, informal managed in a way that meets these stakeholders’ street performances as a nuisance if it took place expectations. At present, most of the benefits are outside of shops and restaurants, but thought not being realised. that organised events such as busking festivals and street fairs could bring more business to At present, the group deriving the most benefit the neighbourhood, especially on slow business from street performance are the street performers days.84 It was important to her to have control themselves. The benefits include artistic over what sort of street performers were allowed expression, self-actualisation, publicity, enjoyment, to perform in the area. She thought that if the social activity and earning money, For some Government curated street performers, they such as Ah Sun, the primary benefit is affordable could serve to enhance the marketability of entertainment, as buying a karaoke machine on different neighbourhoods. For example, classical Taobao together with his retired friends proved musicians should be assigned pitches in upmarket more affordable than singing in community neighbourhoods, whereas Cantonese opera or hall recitals, where organisers typically charge old style Cantopop singers should be assigned participants several hundred dollars per song. to grassroots areas like Yau Ma Tei.85 Ms. L, a However, even performers are unable to maximise neighbourhood concern group representative, their benefits as they are constrained by the had enjoyed watching good quality street shrinking space available for street performance, performances while on holiday and supported conflicts with other stakeholders, competition for “nice and well-managed street performance”, space with other performers, and unpredictable but felt the current situation generated too much encounters with law enforcement officers. nuisance.86

Audiences derive enjoyment from their interactions With regards to the Government, the potential with street performers, but many may not benefits of city marketing and cultural promotion perceive themselves as stakeholders because the are currently only being realised at a very modest benefits they enjoy are diffuse and fleeting. As scale through the various small-scale street one performer, Arrvin, put it, street performance performance schemes run by LCSD and WKCDA has little impact on most people’s lives, and even described in Section 1. Mr. S, an assistant for Ma those who enjoy it see themselves as fans of Fung-kwok, the LegCo representative for the specific performers and not of street performance Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication in general.82 However, there is a subset of mostly Functional Constituency, argued that street older fans for whom street performance appears to performance could play a larger role in branding make up a significant part of their leisure and social Hong Kong as a cultured city as well as a global activity. K.K., Yan-yan, and Mong Kok Roman who financial centre.87 As will be explained in detail in sing classic Cantonese and Mandarin pop songs say Section 6, Hong Kong does not have a department that their audiences consist mostly of retirees who or bureau of culture, so there is no specific are willing to travel to Central or Tsim Sha Tsui from government body that is well positioned to fully the New Territories. capture or take credit for these benefits even if they should be realised. Instead, the current Other major stakeholder groups, namely residents’ administrative structure mainly interacts with groups, retailers and developers thought that street performance as a noise nuisance (through street performance could potentially bring HKPF), a street obstruction (through FEHD and placemaking benefits but did not currently see HKPF), and as a disruption to public recreational them being realised (see Section 3.2). Mr. C, spaces (through LCSD). Government bodies a representative of a private developer, said involved in city marketing or advising cultural that if street performance were managed in policy, such as the Hong Kong Tourism Board and a “more orderly and constructive manner”, it the Hong Kong Arts Development Council, do not could contribute to the character of Hong Kong currently perceive street performance as part of and become a tourist attraction as in London or their purview.

19 Benefits, Problems and Opportunities of Street Performance

TABLE 2 Problems due to street performance

Stakeholder group Potential problems from street performance Street performers Noise disruption from nearby performers (sometimes deliberate) Competition for performance space in popular street performance locations Negative public perception due to poor quality performances Unpredictable enforcement from Police and FEHD for noise and obstruction Retailers Noise disturbance to employees and customers Obstruction of shop entrances by performers or their audiences Deterrence of customers in cases of severe nuisance (e.g. former Mong Kok pedestrian zone) Developers Noise disruption to tenants and customers Obstruction of pedestrians on nearby pavements and footbridges Negative impact on neighbourhood image caused by nuisance and poor quality performances Neighbourhood Noise nuisance if performers locate near residential buildings concern groups Obstruction of neighbourhood pavements, footpaths, jogging trails Disruption of quiet enjoyment of public recreational spaces Negative impact on neighbourhood image caused by poor quality performances Offence to sensibilities caused by socially inappropriate performances Government Receipt of complaints Manpower and resources spent handling complaints Distraction from core responsibilities of Government departments (food and public hygiene for FEHD, crime and public safety for HKPF) DCs Complaints from constituents

3.3 Street performance problems quality of the noise as well as its volume. Melville found the tinny quality of amplifiers irritating, Problems with street performance identified by arguing that talented performers should not need stakeholder interviewees tended to fall into three them and that they should be banned. categories: noise, obstruction of public spaces, and issues of quality and taste. These problems affect The developers and retail association different stakeholders in slightly different ways, representatives interviewed for this project did not summarised in Table 2 above. report being disturbed by noise, as performers did not usually set up too close to their properties or 3.3.1 Noise businesses,89 but when the Mong Kok pedestrian Noise is a major source of conflict between zone was in operation, shopkeepers complained street performers and other stakeholders such as of being unable to hear their own customers, and residents and business owners. Street performance of the noise causing psychological distress in their 90 adds to the considerable noise pollution that employees. urban residents already endure, according to Mary Melville, spokesperson for the Tsim Sha Tsui Residents may complain about noise even when Residents’ Concern Group, who commented that it does not occur close to residential buildings. her neighbourhood is “bombarded with noise Melville felt that loud performers disrupted 24 hours a day”.88 As social norms and individual residents’ ability to quietly enjoy the waterfront, sensitivities influence what people consider while DC member Cheng Lai-king reported acceptable noise, people may be bothered by the receiving complaints from joggers on the Central

20 waterfront at night. She argued that the DC enforcement as arbitrary, as they are never sure had worked so hard over so many years to get when they are staying within the law or if they will the waterfront promenade built that residents’ draw complaints. enjoyment should not be spoiled by performers.91 As public open space is at a premium in densely From the law enforcement side, the Police also built-up Hong Kong, diverting loud performances cite the fact that there is “no specific threshold away from built-up area towards open areas of noise level for prosecution” as one of their would not necessarily satisfy residents, who are challenges in bringing prosecutions, as this means competing recreational users. that they must present witnesses in court, and they sometimes have difficulties in “locating Developers and businesses do not want to be the informants for further enquiry or securing disturbed by noise, but can also be generators of their agreement to be prosecution witnesses”.96 noise when conducting events that may include The lack of clear rules may also encourage more performances or large crowds gathering. Hence, disputes and complicate their enforcement efforts they may not be in favour of extremely strict noise on the ground, as they also mention performers’ controls. Developer B noted that when they held “ignorance of the offences they may commit” outdoor performance events, despite making among their difficulties.97 Therefore, several much effort to liaise with DCs and government performers suggested implementing an objective departments in advance, they invariably received a decibel standard to reduce disputes, both with few noise complaints.92 law enforcement and with each other.98 Yau Tsim Mong DC member, Yu Tak-po, also thought that While it might be assumed that street performers an objective rule would ease the stigmatisation would oppose noise controls, in fact noise causes of the dai ma, as all performers would be treated distress among them as well. Multiple performers equally.99 trying to occupy a relatively small area often results in escalating volume levels as they try to be heard Some performers described mostly cordial over one another. This behaviour is sometimes interactions with the Police. Those playing on deliberate and hostile, and results in performers the Central waterfront said that they were not calling the Police on each other. Musician Jay Lee made to leave and usually only asked to turn recalled incidences when other bands set up right their volume down or show their ID cards. Others next to his and tried to drown him out on purpose. saw themselves as the targets of unpredictable If attempts to negotiate were not successful, he enforcement. Arrvin recounts one incident in would reluctantly call the Police and hope that the which the Police instructed him leave, even though responding officer’s personal assessment would he had just started playing and another band resolve the situation in his favour. nearby was the likely cause of the complaint.100 Mong Kok Roman, who used to perform in the At present, the Noise Control Ordinance classifies Mong Kok Pedestrian Zone, was charged with street performance as noise from domestic noise violations 14 times after the Police began to premises and public places under Sections 4 and crack down harder in 2017, and blames the nearby 5 of that Ordinance.93 The EPD is not authorised dai ma for being argumentative and provoking by the Ordinance to issue technical guidelines the Police into fining every performer on the for this type of noise, and states that its nature street. He says that the size of his stall made it is such that it is not possible to do so.94 Hence impossible for him to escape notice, claiming that there are no decibel limits for street performers. he can no longer set up in Mong Kok without being Enforcement is therefore carried out by the Police immediately moved on.101 on a “subjective nuisance basis” in which officers respond to complaints and make discretionary Just before the closure of the Mong Kok pedestrian judgments based on observation, witness zone in 2018, Yu Tak-po led a noise control statements and circumstantial evidence.95 As experiment with a few volunteer street performers a result, street performers often experience on one block of Sai Yeung Choi Street South to try

21 Benefits, Problems and Opportunities of Street Performance

to build a case that regulation was possible. Yu set but performers are not legally responsible for a limit of 80 dBA and asked participant performers obstructions caused by their audiences, and the to take turns at pitches located 25 metres FEHD is not authorized to take enforcement action distant from each other. This produced positive against crowds for obstruction as matters of crowd feedback from nearby residents and businesses. control or public order fall outside their purview. However, these measures were not taken up by Few musical performers reported being the Government as doing so would likely have approached by the FEHD on grounds of street required the drafting of new legislation to assign a obstruction since, unless they have a large group or government department to implement them. a lot of equipment, they themselves do not take up much space. 3.3.2 Obstruction In comparison to noise and performance quality, Visual artists and handicraft sellers are more likely obstruction was less frequently mentioned as an to have encounters with FEHD as their activities issue. One developer expressed some concern that more closely resemble hawking and they take up street performers on footbridges might obstruct pavement space to display their artwork. Gustavo pedestrians, and that if any performers appeared and Anna, two foreign stencil artists, said that over on footbridges that they were responsible for their three month stay in Hong Kong, they were managing, their security staff would move them approached several times by FEHD enforcement onto government land. Central & Western DC officers on the Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront and member Cheng Lai-king also mentioned that she told that they were taking up too much space had received complaints from joggers about street on the pavement.105 They found this experience dai ma groups and their audiences obstructing the somewhat confusing because there were no clear Central waterfront promenade.102 On shopping instructions on how much space they were allowed streets like the former Mong Kok pedestrian to take up, or where they were allowed to be, precinct, obstructions had a negative impact on and had to learn by trial and error how not to get businesses by blocking shop entrances, instead of a in trouble. They contrasted this with Melbourne, positive one by drawing more footfall. which has guidelines on how many square metres of space pavement artists are allowed to occupy Laws against obstructing public spaces include (see Section 5 for details). Section 4A of the Summary Offences Ordinance which makes it an offence, “without lawful However, FEHD representatives did not think that authority or excuse”, to set out anything in a the existing rules had any significant grey areas, public place which “obstructs, inconveniences or and said that their officers were trained to exercise endangers” any person or vehicle,103 and Section discretion, taking into account multiple factors 22 of the Municipal Services Ordinance, which including the state of foot traffic, spatial design of prohibits placing any objects in the street that the location in question, area of affected space, obstruct “any scavenging or conservancy or any traffic direction and flow, 106etc. Since no set of street sweeper acting in the performance of his guidelines can take every set of circumstances duty”.104 The former is enforced jointly by the into account, enforcement agencies may prefer Police and the Food and Environmental Hygiene broadly defined rules that give more room for Department (FEHD), but the responsibility falls professional judgment to be exercised. However, mainly on FEHD as the Police generally only these discretionary assessments remain opaque to become involved if there is a safety issue (e.g. performers. pedestrian-vehicle conflict, crowd control). The FEHD may also seek assistance from the Police in 3.3.3 Taste case of confrontations with members of the public. Taste, which is usually framed by stakeholders as The latter is enforced exclusively by FEHD. “quality”, is the most difficult element to define as it is subjective and dependent on social context. Crowd gathering around performers can take up As discussed in Section 1, many interviewees’ much more space than the performers themselves, concerns about taste were directed at dai ma

22 groups, whose performances were perceived as Performers were more divided on the issue of culturally undesirable, crude and inappropriate. A quality. Some felt that poor-quality performers few of the more professionalised and artistically- gave the rest of them a bad name and favoured minded performers also expressed concerns some sort of auditioning system in order to weed about unserious casual performers. For example, out the worst ones.115 Others opposed exclusionary performer Jay Lee argued that performers should policies on principle. Arrvin was sceptical of make a conscious effort to interact with the public, auditioning as he did not want to see street and not just use public space as a practice room or performance become a “small circle pursuit”.116 karaoke lounge.107 Mr. Kong, an older performer who had auditioned for a WKCDA license, thought that auditions are Residents’ groups, retailers and developers, as inherently unfair because quality is subjective.117 well as DC members were concerned about the He opposed the discriminatory singling out of impact of what they perceived as poor-quality dai ma groups, and argued that everyone should street performances on their districts’ and Hong simply be required follow the same objective Kong’s image. Central DC member, Cheng Lai-king, rules of conduct. Ah Sun, a retired karaoke singer, considered dai ma incompatible with the city’s similarly opposed any screening that might exclude image, and unsuitable to be seen by any passing casual performers like himself.118 children.108 DC member, Cherry Wong, stated that her priorities were to prevent excessive noise and There is very little in Hong Kong’s existing policies obstruction, and that while street performance or regulations that addresses the issue of taste. The might make an area more vibrant, she did not want most relevant piece of legislation is the Summary it to attract undesirable crowds.109 Community Offences Ordinance’s prohibition on “tak[ing] group representative Ms. L said that she supported part in, provid[ing] or manag[ing] any public live street performances that were “good-quality, performance of an indecent, obscene, revolting or decent, and reflect the culture of the city”, but was offensive nature,”119 although prosecutions under concerned about the negative impact of “vulgar”, this provision are rare and reserved for extreme borderline “pornographic” performances on the cases.120 Existing street performance schemes run image and appearance of Hong Kong.110 She had by LCSD and WKCDA require auditions, but have so received some complaints about dai ma from far skirted controversy over freedom of expression neighbourhood residents.111 because they apply only to specific venues. Applying a screening process to the whole of Hong Mr. C, a developer’s representative, said that street Kong would require grappling with these questions. performances should have “sensible rules” and be “in line with the expectation of the community”, Pong Yat-ming, who runs a non-profit called Let’s in that there should not be any “outrageous” Start aimed at exposing young Hong Kongers to displays.112 The retail chamber representative busking best practices from abroad, argued for a stated, “we really don’t like it, if we have dai ma gentler “sunshine” approach aimed at encouraging singing, no one likes it”, and that they only wanted rather than mandating quality through education, to see “very high-quality” street performers near incentives, and programming.121 He suggested their members’ high-end shops and restaurants.113 hosting competitions or open mic events with invited professional musicians interspersed Tsim Sha Tsui residents’ advocate Melville, throughout the programme to set a positive however, had a more tolerant attitude towards the example and foster a healthier sense of dai ma, saying “these elderly men have to have competition. This would enable the Government some sort of joy in their life…They don’t have very to steer the narrative in a more constructive much going for them. So give them something.”114 direction. Instead, she saw bad performance as more of an issue of certain commercially-motivated groups Melville similarly argued that the Government dominating public space in an antisocial manner. should proactively programme public spaces to provide the community with more free

23 Benefits, Problems and Opportunities of Street Performance

entertainment. Underutilised public spaces could strong variance with the policy approach in Taipei, be adapted into performance venues and the LCSD where street performance is actively promoted as could organise programmes such as talent shows a saleable cultural product, and the law explicitly to give people the opportunity to perform. “We defines street performance as performing in public have to have create more entertainment. And then spaces for money (see Section 5).126 you have, like, one week where you want the best guitarist in Hong Kong, and then the next week you DC member Cheng Lai-king discussed dai ma on want the best clarinet player, and the next time the the Central Waterfront in the same vein as illegal best K-pop band, you know, whatever the Hong hawkers,127 while characterising them as deceiving Kong equivalent of it is. Do you know what I mean? old men out of their money.128 Many stakeholders Have a contest.”122 blamed the deterioration of the Mong Kok pedestrian precinct on excessive commercialisation by karaoke booth holders resulting in aggressive, 3.4 Perceptions of street performer inconsiderate behaviour and rent-seeking with 129 legitimacy in public space usage the suspected involvement of organised crime. Melville viewed commercial performers as gang- As discussed in Section 5, cities with proactive like bullies who monopolised public spaces at approaches to promoting street performance the expense of other, perhaps more talented, 130 often do so through policies which define and performers. Many of the performers interviewed describe legitimate street performance activity. also perceived a division between hobby-driven Licensing systems, zoning of performance performers and money-driven performers, holding spaces, or official definitions of accepted forms the latter responsible for the bulk of the nuisances of street performance, while restrictive, also and low-quality performances. provide recognition and endorsement of street performance activities that fall within certain Melville suggested prohibiting performers from parameters. accepting donations at all, saying that street performance should not be a full-time job, but Hong Kong’s passive approach neither explicitly an opportunity for amateurs to showcase their 131 endorses nor bans street performance. Street talents. Bans on donations are currently used performers’ rights and responsibilities are by some public space managers as a means of therefore not clearly recognised by the public, deterring performers seen as more likely to be leading to confusion and disagreement over what problematic. As noted in Section 1.4, the LCSD’s constitutes legitimate use of public space. One Cultural Centre does not allow street performers to 132 interviewee was under the impression that all accept donations. The Leisure Services branch of unauthorised street performance was illegal,123 the LCSD is also seeking to extend similar policies and another thought that accepting any donations to its parks (see Section 1.3.3), arguing to LegCo constituted illegal begging.124 Others differed in March 2020 that “the root of noise nuisance on whether street performance needed to have problem in some parks lies in the acts of accepting some minimum level of artistic merit, or whether pecuniary reward for musical performances and 133 it was acceptable to use public space purely for singing activities”. Similarly, street performers the sake of self-entertainment. Often, stakeholder who take part in some private busking schemes, views of performers’ legitimacy were shaped by such as the MTRC’s and one hosted by a developer, their interpretations of the underlying causes were also prohibited from accepting voluntary of negative spillover effects, in which antisocial contributions or displaying merchandise for sale. behaviours are framed as abuses of public space.125 One of the most common framings was It is debatable whether a broad ban on donations to blame antisocial performer conduct on the would be feasible or sufficiently narrowly targeted. over-commercialisation of public space, resting on Ah Sun thought that it would be unrealistic and 134 the assumption that people should not be using impossible to enforce. Mr. Kong suggested the public space to make money. These views are at Government should find some way to tax street performers on their earnings, although he thought

24 that this would be difficult.135 Moreover, while a to legitimise street performers through some sort few performers said that they would be willing to of authorisation process, thereby endorsing their perform for free (K.K. said that she would accept presence in public space within defined parameters donating all of her proceeds to charity), many in the manner of licensed hawkers. This might others, including highly skilled performers, might give street performers a greater sense of security be deterred. as well as a clear definition of their rights and responsibilities. The perceived line between hobby and commercial performers appears to have more to do with internal motivations than with externally 3.5 Location measurable behaviour. The majority of self- described casual or hobby-oriented performers Location is a factor which mediates the spillover also accept donations, which they see as something effects of street performance on third party nice to have, a token of appreciation from fans, stakeholders. Street performers can cause noise or a way to make back their transportation costs. disturbances only if they are located in close CUHK’s 2015 street performer census found, while proximity to incompatible activities and land uses. only about one-quarter of street performers did it The level of disturbance is exacerbated when as a full-time job,136 just 15 per cent reported they several musicians are located close to each other, “never” collected donations from audiences, and generating noise that is discordant as well as another 20 per cent said they “seldom” did.137 loud. Locating them further away from sensitive receivers can reduce people's exposure to noise. Of the 11 performers interviewed for this project, four relied on street performance for a significant Similarly, the level of obstruction depends on both part of their income, but only one described the amount of space the performer takes up and himself as a “commercial artist” and engaged the external environment. Areas where obstruction in the type of activity that others might deem is a more serious problem include pavements commercialisation of public space. Mong Kok and walkways at peak hours, shop and building Roman used to run a karaoke booth in Mong Kok, entrances, pedestrian crossings, and places where saying that his group netted HK$50,000-60,000 a pedestrians may spill over into the carriageway. month in their heyday. He claims to have pioneered the practice of asking individual audience members Location may also be a matter of taste. While for donations instead of just leaving out a hat. some stakeholders emphasised that they did He attracted such large crowds that the Inland not wish to see inappropriate or offensive Revenue Department required him to obtain performances anywhere in Hong Kong, high- a business license. However, he did not see his profile tourist locations, higher-end shopping activities as excessively commercial because unlike districts, and middle-class or upper-class the dai ma, he cared about artistic quality. residential neighbourhoods may be less tolerant of performances perceived as low-quality. A policy dilemma therefore lies in finding some way to allow street performers the chance to Therefore, locational solutions can be an make legitimate earnings without encouraging important tool to address conflicts. Several antisocial competitive behaviours. One alternative stakeholders suggested that the Government approach would be to directly regulate the designate certain areas for street performers nuisance behaviours, which is the approach to minimise conflicts with other stakeholders. that New York City has taken towards costumed Developers and neighbourhood concern groups characters who aggressively solicit money from suggested strategies such as locating them far tourists in Times Square (see Section 5). Melville from residential areas, limiting the number of suggests that imposing a limit on the duration performance pitches to preserve the majority of of performances would deter performers from public space for quiet enjoyment, or matching making money by monopolising public spaces for performers with locations to enhance city long periods of time.138 Another approach might be marketing. DC member Yu Tak-po agreed that it

25 Benefits, Problems and Opportunities of Street Performance

would be a good idea for DCs to be consulted on Accessibility: Many of the street performers where to locate street performance pitches to interviewed were highly mobile and performed avoid objections from residents. 139 in different districts across Hong Kong. Access by public transport was therefore important, However, aside from considering third party especially for those who carry bulky equipment. stakeholders’ needs in nuisance mitigation, Tsim Sha Tsui and Central & Western were there should also be consideration of street particularly attractive due to their accessibility performers’ needs in location selection. Some by multiple modes of transport. Performers who performers such as Jay Lee and Mong Kok Roman cater to retirees value public transport accessibility supported designating performance zones since more than pedestrian foot flow because they this would guarantee some space for performers, have built up loyal fan followings who are willing with the latter suggesting a revival of the old to travel long distances and who only need to pay dai dat dei in some form to serve as a tourist the HK$2 concessionary fare for senior citizens. attraction.140,141 However, overly restrictive zoning Some performers on the Central waterfront had can result in street performers being relegated to audience members travelling from as far as Fanling. unviable spaces. For example, Gustavo noted an unsuccessful example in Mallorca, Spain, where Competition: The presence of other street the local government not only designated pitches performers of the same type in the same place in undesirable locations but charged performers a may result in excessive competition. Aggressive fee to use them.142 Viable locational policies must space and volume level competition in the former therefore be based on a realistic understanding Mong Kok pedestrian precinct prompted several of how street performers operate. Below is a performers to move elsewhere, i.e. Tsim Sha brief summary of street performers’ locational Tsui, in search of a more relaxed environment. considerations. Performers have various strategies for dealing with competition, ranging from avoidance to Footfall: Footfall is a major consideration for negotiation to coordination or cooperation with many street performers as heavier exposure to other performers of the same type. For example, crowds increases their earnings, but it is not an Yan-yan coordinates with fellow street singers by equal consideration for all performers. It is mostly organizing different performance times, so that important to those who collect donations from instead of competing, they can contribute to each passers-by by leaving out a musical instrument other’s fan bases.143 While some performers were case or hat, or visual artists and handicraft reluctant to disrupt the existing first-come-first- sellers, who rely on tourist traffic. For those serve practice of claiming space, others complained with established fan bases willing to travel long about performers (or paid agents thereof) showing distances, or self-entertainers, footfall is less of a up hours in advance to reserve pitches. consideration. However, high footfall also increases the likelihood of causing obstruction, which is a Authorities and jurisdictional lines: Street concern for the FEHD and the Police. performers avoid locations where they have a high chance of being chased away by the Police, Audience mix: Different locations attract different other enforcement agencies, or private security audience mixes due to the surrounding land uses guards. Experienced performers become keenly and activities. For example, commuter crowds aware of the frequently unmarked boundaries on the way to and from public transport hubs between land managed by different government are more hurried and less likely to stop to watch. departments and private landowners, ensuring Performers noted that Causeway Bay tends that they remain mobile enough to move across to attract younger crowds, while Tsim Sha Tsui boundaries at short notice. For example, at the sees more tourists. The time of day and week Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront, LCSD staff are quick to also makes a difference, with crowds being in a remove any street performers seeking to receive more leisurely state over the weekend than on donations from the Cultural Centre premises, and weekdays. Performers therefore select different private security guards managing the walkway locations based on expected audiences or adapt in front of Ocean Terminal do not permit them their play styles to the audience mix.

26 on their premises at all. However, performers 3.6 Minimising conflicts and report that they can receive donations in front maximising benefits of the Star Ferry and bus terminus, which are transport facilities under the jurisdiction of the TD As explained above, street performance causes and patrolled by the Police and FEHD in the same problems that impact various stakeholder groups, manner as public pavements. while its potential benefits are not currently being realised. If the objective of public space Shelter: Shelter is imperative for street performers management is to ensure that “public space can of all types. Shade from the sun and rain is fulfil all its legitimate roles, whilst managing the considered essential to make it bearable to interactions between, and impacts of, those perform for longer periods, particularly during the multiple functions in a way that is acceptable to summer. Performers with equipment or selling its users”,144 then it is necessary to shift street merchandise or artwork value shelter to prevent performance into a mode of operation that their goods from becoming damaged by rain or sun reduces conflicts while bringing benefits to more exposure. In Tsim Sha Tsui and Central, sheltered stakeholder groups. spaces under ferry piers, covered walkways, and footbridges are highly sought after.

TABLE 3 Strategies for reducing noise conflict

Objective: Reduce noise conflict Strategy Possible methods Potential benefits for stakeholders Potential drawbacks for stakeholders Control noise Decibel limit Reduces disturbance to others, Implementation challenges - at source reduces disputes between enforcement officers need to carry performers, unambiguous standard decibel meters for enforcement Limit use of amplifiers Reduces disturbance to others, May make performance (may be location simple to enforce unviable in some locations, specific) disproportionate impact on certain types of performers, impacts on other amplifier uses e.g. advertising, community events, election campaigning Mitigate Install temporary Reduces noise impact on others Limits visibility in public space noise impact sound barriers on sensitive Designate performance Reduces disturbance to noise- Reduced accessibility and visibility receivers pitches/zones further sensitive receivers, gives performers for performers, noise still affects from sensitive buildings their “own” space, may be marketed public space users in the vicinity as visitor attraction Extend night-time quiet Reduces disturbance to sleeping Limits street performers, hours residents may impact other night-time entertainment (e.g. bars, restaurants) Reduce noise Require distance Mitigates noise volume, prevents May be challenging for clashes/ (e.g. 30m) between discordant noise, reduces noise enforcement officers to enforce, competition performers competition between performers may promote territorial disputes between between performers performers Designate specific Mitigates noise volume, prevents Inflexible, may ignore performers’ pitches for performers discordant noise, reduces noise needs using sound competition between performers, easy to enforce, may enhance attractiveness of shopping & visitor destinations

27 Benefits, Problems and Opportunities of Street Performance

TABLE 4 Strategies for reducing conflict due to pedestrian obstruction

Objective: Reduce conflicts over obstruction of public spaces Strategy Possible methods Potential benefits Potential drawbacks for stakeholders for stakeholders Prevent Prohibit performers from setting up Protects pedestrian Limits performers' obstruction adjacent to pedestrian crossings, safety, ensures access to access to locations with in critical building and shop entrances, public buildings & shops high foot traffic locations transport stops, etc Clarify Provide guidelines on how much Maintains minimum Guidelines may be too obstruction space performers should be allowed clear space for rigid, less room for rules for to occupy and/or how much pedestrian circulation, officer discretion performers unobstructed pedestrian pathway clear guidelines for should be left under ordinary performers to follow circumstances Provide designated pitches for street Clear guidelines for Inflexible, does not take performers with drawn spaces on the performers to follow, obstructions caused by ground unambiguous to enforce crowds into account Address Teach performers best practices in Potentially less work for obstruction controlling their audiences enforcement officers by crowds Assign pitches in wide open spaces Accommodates larger- Inflexible, potentially around for “circle shows” (shows involving scale performance in draws arbitrary performers audience participation, larger crowds suitable locations distinction between gathering for relatively extended “circle” and “non-circle” periods) shows in HK context

TABLE 5 Strategies for raising the quality of street performance

Objective: Improve image/quality of street performers Strategy Possible methods Potential benefits Potential drawbacks for stakeholders for stakeholders Filter out Licenses with auditions Improves district/city image, Exclusionary, based on poor quality improves image of performers, subjective taste May be city-wide or applicable performances may enhance attractiveness of to specified locations shopping & visitor destinations Recruit non-profit groups to act Improves district/city image, Potential to become as vetting organisations improves image of performers, cliquish and may enhance attractiveness of exclusionary shopping & visitor destinations, potentially less work for enforcement officers Improve Education and cultural Improves image of street Does not immediately performer programming for street performers over long term, address low quality standards performers to encourage skill provides more community performances development and best practices entertainment, can make use of underutilised open spaces Optional auditioning – approved Provides incentives for Creates hierarchy of performers guaranteed performers to improve skills, performers, does not access to prominent locations, improves image of selected prevent low-quality promotional support neighbourhoods performances

28 TABLE 6 Strategies for strengthening the legitimacy of street performers in public spaces

Objective: Raise street performer legitimacy Strategy Possible methods Potential benefits Potential drawbacks for stakeholders for stakeholders Prevent use of public Ban street performer Removes commercial Also negatively space for profit-making donations (city-wide or performers from public space impacts most amateur purposes location-specific) performers Tax street performers on Reduces financial incentives for Difficult to implement earnings street performers and enforce, may not deter commercial performers Allow passive receipt of Reduces financial incentives Disrupts business model donations (e.g. in music for street performers, deters of some performers, may instrument case) but harassment of audiences be difficult to enforce not active solicitation of donations Directly regulate Implement and enforce rules Reduces nuisance, may reduce Does not address taste- antisocial behaviour to on noise, obstruction as perception of abuse of public based objections reduce perception of suggested above space public space misuse Grant official legitimacy Grant authorisation (e.g. Recognises street performers’ May be complicated to to street performers through licensing) to street rights, provides clear rules enforce performers as long as they May exclude some adhere to rules of conduct performers Clarify rules and Create clear rules for noise, Clarifies what activities are May be more restrictive regulations obstruction and quality that within legal bounds, protects than street performers provide reasonable scope legal street performer activities want, or alternatively for street performance not restrictive enough to activities satisfy other stakeholders Promote and support Promote street performers Highlights positive benefits Tends to privilege certain street performance in city marketing materials, of street performance, brings approved types of street host street performance publicity to street performers performers events

The suggestions presented above are not policy order to assess their acceptability and feasibility, prescriptions but a broad range of possible and to identify challenges in implementation, methods that might be used to address the it is necessary to gain a better understanding problems outlined above. They are drawn from of the power dynamics between stakeholders. suggestions given by the stakeholders as well as Stakeholder relations will be analysed in Section 4 from international examples (see Section 5). In through the CLIP analysis.

29 4 Stakeholder analysis

In this section, the bulk of the CLIP analysis assessing power is to understand the extent to is carried out to build profiles of participant- which the stakeholder can influence decisions stakeholders and map their relationships, based on made regarding street performance management, the four factors: ongoing relations of collaboration/ which enables the identification of opportunities conflict, legitimacy, interests and power145. and obstacles for future policies.

The assessment of interests then looks at the 4.1 CLIP analysis explained degree of potential gains and losses of the stakeholder in the case of new policies being First, the nature of existing relationships between implemented. Stakeholders are categorised as stakeholders are categorised in a conflict having a strong or weak interest in the issue and collaboration matrix (see Table 7). This based on how much they stand to gain or lose. provides a picture of which stakeholders are in For example, street performers have a strong conflicting or collaborative relationships with interest in any new policies as they would be each other. Relationships can also be categorised directly impacted. Other stakeholders may have as mixed (sometimes conflicting and sometimes a more peripheral interest, such as government collaborating), neutral, or unknown. departments with some tangential regulatory relevance. The analysis also records the direction These more ambiguous relationship types present of stakeholders’ interests, which can be used to opportunities for change in the relationships highlight stakeholders sharing similar interests and between stakeholders through the introduction concerns but who are not yet in a collaborative of new policies. For example, unknown (and relationship. perhaps non-existent) relationships between business associations, street performers and Finally, the assessment of legitimacy focuses on artistic concern groups could potentially become the extent to which a stakeholder’s rights and more collaborative, provided that the performers responsibilities are recognised and respected by involved are compatible with the commercial other stakeholders. Each stakeholder is described environment. as having high/medium or low/no legitimacy. It should be noted that there may be discrepancies Next, each stakeholders’ power is rated as either between stakeholders’ self-perceived legitimacy high/medium or low/none. Power is based on and that acknowledged by others. One example is stakeholders’ abilities to mobilise resources to that dai ma karaoke street singers may consider achieve their desired objectives. This is based on themselves as having as much right to use financial resources and assets as well as social public space as other performers, but may be and political connections and authority, including considered illegitimate by some other musicians formal law enforcement power. The purpose of due to perceived lack of artistic merit. The right

30 to public space is therefore not understood as 4.2 Collaboration and conflict universal among various stakeholders. For street performers, the exercise of rights to public space Table 7 below illustrates the existing web of are much constrained by specific temporal and conflicting, collaborating, mixed, neutral and spatial contexts, and the presence of other unknown relationships between the major stakeholders. Likewise, street performers may not stakeholder groups. The only wholly collaborative all be aware of the responsibilities assumed upon relationships street performers had was with Non- them by other stakeholders. governmental organisations (NGOs) and busking concern groups. Among the participants were Based on the above assessments, CLIP descriptors three performers involved in two busking concern are used to categorise stakeholders into seven groups, notably City Echo, which was established types: dominant, forceful, influential, dormant, by Jay Lee in 2016 to “promote street performance concerned, vulnerable and marginal (Figure 4). and advocate high quality street culture with good E.g. stakeholders with a high level of power, quality music”, and Let’s Start (一打人去賣藝) set up interest and legitimacy are “dominant”; those by Pong Yat-ming in 2012, which supports young with high power and legitimacy but weak interest Hong Kongers in experiencing the world through are “influential”; those with high legitimacy and busking abroad. Both organisations had young interest but little power are “vulnerable”, etc. people as their target audience rather than more These categories help illuminate the respective mature performers. positions of stakeholders. In combination with the conflict/collaboration analysis, this mapping Street performers are in conflicting relationships exercise helps to identify areas of potential change with some stakeholders such as neighbourhood or stumbling blocks. concern groups (representing residents) due to the noise and nuisance that they can cause. As noted in Section 3, middle-class residents are also FIGURE 4 Stakeholder power/interest/ concerned about the negative image of what they legitimacy categories see as low-quality street performance.

Street performers reported some degree of conflict with enforcement agencies, including the Police and FEHD. Several street performers PL mentioned being moved on, shut down, or issued P Forceful I Dormant Marginal summonses by the Police on various occasions. However, at other times they reported more PIL Dominant cordial and neutral interactions with the Police, PL IL especially those playing on the Central waterfront Influential Vulnerable where there are no residential buildings nearby. Non- Visual artists described more interactions with the L stakeholders FEHD where they were told they were obstructing Concerned the pavement or questioned about apparent hawking. Interactions with LCSD staff were more mixed as performers described being told to move off LCSD-managed land onto adjoining public Venn diagram showing the relationship between pavement areas. However, the Cultural Centre does the various CLIP descriptors allow and facilitate performers who are willing to abide by its house rules (see Section 1.4) on its sections of the Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront.

31 Stakeholder analysis

Street performers have mixed relationships with the Police and FEHD as very responsive on the some other stakeholders, meaning that they both (relatively few) occasions where they called to collaborate and conflict at times. For example, complain about street performers or hawkers on while some DC members view street performance their properties. However, property owners and primarily as a nuisance, others, notably Yu Tak-po businesses that hosted events or which supported of Yau Tsim Mong, have worked with performers to streetscape improvement works had a more try to propose solutions to the Government. Street mixed relationship with government departments performers have also occasionally collaborated due to the complexity and difficulty of obtaining with developers and businesses by performing by approvals, such as Temporary Place of Public invitation at events, street festivals, or taking part Entertainment (TPPE) permits. in privately-run busking schemes. One of these schemes, “Uth Live Saturdays” involves cross- Developers’ relationships with DCs were also more sectoral cooperation between the MTRC and an mixed. While they liaised with the DCs on various NGO, the HKFYG, whereby the latter runs an open neighbourhood and street management matters audition scheme for student groups to apply to and briefed DCs in advance of special events, they perform at Hong Kong Station each Saturday.146 still sometimes received complaints from DCs about noise or other disruption caused by those Developers and businesses generally cooperate events. well with enforcement agencies, describing

TABLE 7 Stakeholder collaboration and conflict matrix

Ref No. Stakeholders 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 Street performers m x m + m x x m n m + 02 Retailers m n m m n + m u m u u 03 Neighbourhood concern groups x n m x n + n u m u u 04 DC members m m m m m m + + m u u 05 Artistic concern groups + m x m x m m m u u + 06 Property developers m n n m x + u u u + u 07 HKPF x + + m m + + + + + u 08 FEHD x m n + m u + + + m u 09 LCSD m u u + m u + + u u u 10 TD n m m m u u + + u u u 11 MTRC m u u u u + + m u u + 12 NGO (HKFYG) + u u u + u u u u u +

Key: + = collaborating x = conflicting m = mixed n = neutral u = unknown

32 4.3 Stakeholder categorisation or amenity provision, and their advice on policy matters is sometimes followed. However, this Stakeholders are categorised through assessments influence is mostly reactive, e.g. by voicing opinions of their power, interests and legitimacy (PIL), on government schemes rather than in being able placing them into one of the seven PIL categories to proactively propose new policies. Additionally, as shown in Figure 4 above. Please also see DC members may not necessarily be well-informed Appendix 2 for a table summary of the major on all the issues with which they deal. Street stakeholder groups. performance is a relatively new issue to the Central & Western DC compared to the YTM DC, so its 4.3.1 Dominant members are not as familiar with the regulatory Four participant stakeholders are grouped details. Hence, while they are seen as legitimate under the dominant category. Two of them elected representatives, public confidence in them are government departments – LCSD and the is constrained by their limited ability to make an HKPF – one an elected body (the DCs) and one impact. from the private sector. These stakeholders are in a dominant position because they are ranked Of the government departments interviewed, moderate to high in their interest in street the LCSD is the only one able to manage street performance management, their authority to performance activities actively, and it has the enforce rules or exercise political influence, and widest discretion to set and enforce rules within other stakeholders’ recognition of their legitimacy. its jurisdiction. However, its “dominant” position is However, this “dominant” categorisation should qualified by the fact that its powers are limited to be understood in relative terms: although these its own facilities, and one government department stakeholders are in a stronger position than others, alone cannot effect systemic change. However, there are still significant limitations on their ability the LCSD’s experience could potentially serve as or desire to influence the overall situation. Hence a model for other departments when designing their influence may lie more in an ability to block street performance management measures for undesirable policies than in taking positive action. Hong Kong generally.

The DCs have a moderate level of interest, power Outside of LCSD-managed spaces, the Police and and legitimacy in the matter of street performance. the FEHD are by default the departments that Their level of interest in street performance varies interact the most with street performers in streets, depending on how many complaints they currently squares, footbridges and pedestrian subways. receive. At present, the volume of complaints in The Police enforce the Noise Control Ordinance Yau Tsim Mong (YTM) and Central & Western in public places (where EPD technical guidelines (C&W) is not very high, however the YTM DC has do not apply), and the FEHD enforces laws against had much more experience with street performers obstruction. The Police also provide occasional than the C&W DC. While DCs may receive some support to the FEHD and LSCD in carrying out their political credit for achievements in district enforcement duties, and may step in to enforce management, their main method of interacting obstruction laws themselves when necessary with constituents is through complaints. This (such as if an obstruction blocks traffic). However, privileges negative feedback and may encourage although the Police are authorised to enforce noise them to favour more restrictive measures. DCs and obstruction ordinances, this constitutes only a have a moderate amount of power – they have small part of their duties and street management little formal authority to make decisions in their is not a core responsibility. Dealing with street districts as they are primarily advisory bodies performers competes for resources and manpower with the ability to carry out minor public works. with “more imminent tasks, such as dealing with 147 They have some ability to influence government reports of emergency”. However, in the absence actions – they can call on government departments of a government department dedicated to street at the district level for assistance in enforcement management, the Police must handle these

33 Stakeholder analysis

tasks. They are also responsible for administering The FEHD has the authority and resources to the underutilised musical instrument permit enforce laws on street obstruction and hawking, system under the Summary Offences Ordinance. and this authority is broadly perceived as Additionally, changes in street performance policy legitimate. However, their core responsibilities would unavoidably have implications for their with regards to street management are to maintain time and manpower as well as lead to changes in environmental hygiene and control street hawking enforcement guidelines and practices carried out activities (see Section 6 for relevant legislation). by uniformed officers. Hence, in the CLIP analysis, Given limited resources, their enforcement their degree of power and legitimacy in the issue of priorities are on the prevention of hazards to street performance can be said to be high and their hygiene and public safety, such as unlicensed level of interest moderate. hawking (cooked food vendors especially), unauthorized outdoor restaurant extensions, Retailers and F&B outlets, represented by business and obstruction of street cleaning.148 Insofar as associations, do not have as much financial they exercise jurisdiction over street performers, resources as commercial property owners, but are it is to prevent illegal hawking and pavement able to exert moderate influence through their obstruction. Representatives of the FEHD said that working relationships with relevant government under normal circumstances they did not take departments and liaisons with DCs and District enforcement actions against street performers Offices. These relationships are developed over and do not ordinarily consider street artists who time through interactions over licensing, street sell drawings or crafts to be hawking unless they maintenance, public safety, traffic management are seen advertising prices or engaging in direct and event organisation. However, government monetary transactions.149 While FEHD, along responsiveness may vary depending on the type of with other relevant government departments, retail; businesses in high-end shopping districts are strives to control nuisances to pedestrians probably more likely to have their complaints acted caused by a variety of different street activities upon quickly. Businesses’ rights, responsibilities including commercial promotion and pull-up and resolve are fairly well recognised by other banner advertising as well as street performers, stakeholders, as politicians and government street performance in and of itself is not a core departments have an incentive to support local responsibility. However, future street performance economies. Retailers could potentially have much policies may have implications for their manpower to gain or lose from changes to street performance and resources if they involve any redefinition of the policy as they are vulnerable to disruptions to FEHD’s role. business caused by street performers gathering immediately outside ground-level shops. They Neighbourhood concern groups do not have a could stand to gain much from a curated approach great deal of material resources at their disposal to street performance as this could boost district but compensate for this through their knowledge appeal to visitors and increase customer footfall. of Hong Kong’s political and administrative processes, and through their social and political 4.3.2 Influential ties. They are often heavily engaged in public Influential stakeholders are those who have a consultation processes, knowledgeable about medium to high degree of power and legitimacy, their rights, and familiar with other stakeholders, but a lower level of interest. Participant enabling them to communicate their viewpoints stakeholders under this category include business to those in authority. This puts them in a more associations, commercial property owners, and advantageous position compared to street government departments such as the FEHD. As performers and artistic concern groups, although resourceful and well-connected stakeholders, they their influence on government decisions is still are relatively well-respected and their rights and limited and inconsistent. While they do have responsibilities are recognised by others. However, concerns about the quality and accessibility of street performance is a relatively low priority for public space in their neighbourhoods, they do not them. necessarily see street performance as their major

34 priority when compared with other issues such low as they are viewed as improper users of public as urban planning, heritage conservation, and space, and their level of interest is high since their transportation. activities and income are dependent on street performance policies and enforcement practices. The MTRC and NGOs are also categorised as However, while they do not wield political “influential”. The MTRC currently operates its influence in the conventional sense, they have the own auditioned busking scheme at a designated ability to occupy public space through physical stage in Hong Kong Station on Friday nights and intimidation of rival performers and have thus far Saturday afternoons. The former is managed by the been able to circumvent or disregard enforcement MTRC alone, while the latter (Uth Live Saturdays) officers from the LCSD or FEHD, and to a lesser is managed in partnership with the HKFYG. extent, the Police. Some also possess enough The HKFYG is responsible for seeking suitable financial resources to pay multiple fines without youth performers and processing applications being deterred from their activities. from organisations and individuals who wish to participate. The MTRC is well-resourced and 4.3.4 Vulnerable has broad discretion to make its own decisions Street performers, artistic concern groups concerning the use of its MTR stations. However, and individual residents are categorised as the it would not have much to gain or lose by changes vulnerable, meaning that although they have in government street performance policy. A high interests / stakes in the matter of street government licensing scheme for street performers performance policy and their legitimacy is would save them some workload by vetting acknowledged by other stakeholders, their lack of performers in advance, but they are capable of access to resources (financial, social, and political) running their own scheme without government puts them in a vulnerable position. assistance.150 Most street performers are classified as More established and well-resourced NGOs such “vulnerable” because while street performance as the HKFYG could also play an influential role as is generally recognised as a legal (and therefore they are much better funded and more respected legitimate) activity, street performers have little than small buskers’ advocacy groups such as power. They have limited financial resources, are City Echo. They could potentially offer platforms weakly organised, and most have little experience to street performers by collaborating with the with public engagement or the political process. private sector and the Government to administer Mong Kok Roman was friends with a DC member busking schemes such as the one operated by the in Yau Tsim Mong.151 Arrvin had become familiar MTRC and HKFYG. However, it remains to be seen with some of his local DC members and sometimes whether they have an interest in doing so, as large coordinated his performance times with their umbrella organisations such as HKFYG have broad campaign activities in order to benefit from portfolios. They may become more involved in each other’s crowds.152 However, these were managing street performers if opportunities for exceptions. Most had never spoken to any elected funding and partnerships arise, but otherwise are representatives or government officials about their not affected by street performance policy. concerns. While some performers were involved in advocacy and promotion of street art through 4.3.3 Forceful artistic concern groups such as City Echo, these Forceful stakeholders are those which have a high groups tend to be small and hampered by lack of or medium level of power and interest, but low funds. However, their level of interest in street legitimacy. performance policy is high as they would be most directly impacted. A more liberal approach to A subset of street performers could be described street performance management could lead to an as “forceful” relative to other performers, improvement in their social position as legitimate though not necessarily in relation with all other public space users and provide them with access to stakeholders. Their level of perceived legitimacy is official support and opportunities. New rules could

35 Stakeholder analysis

also help them to mediate conflicts with other they are subject to complaints or legal charges. stakeholders by providing a clearer understanding They learn to stay out of trouble through trial and of everyone’s rights and responsibilities. However, error, engaging in a cat-and-mouse game with a restrictive approach might result in a loss of the authorities. Street performers in this category access to public space, a loss of income, and would hugely benefit from more targeted public may delegitimise some performers if they were engagement programmes to put them on a level excluded by a licensing system. playing field in their participation in public life.

Residents are similarly in a vulnerable position, The TD’s Walkability Task Force is also classified as even though interests are largely opposite from “marginal”. While it may seem counterintuitive to those of street performers. They can be strongly place a government department in this category, affected by street performance activities, and this was done because, out of all the government while other stakeholders tend to be sympathetic departments involved in the situation, it has the towards their need for quiet especially at night, most to gain from improved street performance individually they have little influence. Residents can management but the least formal authority call the Police or approach DCs with complaints, or influence over it. Its level of interest in this but as the example of Sai Yeung Choi Street shows, area is moderate to high because unresolved such complaints do not necessarily produce speedy street management problems affect its ability to results. implement pedestrian programmes as part of its walkability agenda. However, it has a moderate to More restrictive policies would benefit residents low amount of power in the situation because it by providing stronger reassurance that their living lacks the legal authority to manage street activities environment will be free from nuisance caused outside the arena of traffic safety within the by street performance. This would not necessarily pedestrian zones that it can create. It does have mean a blanket ban of street performers from all some influence among government departments public spaces, but may involve relocating them to and as it has been able to involve them in an spaces far from residences. interdepartmental policy steering group at the senior management level, involving FEHD, HKFP, 4.3.5 Marginal the HAD and HYD where different topics related to Some street performers fall under the marginal its walkability study, including street management, category, as they have much to gain or lose but lack are discussed.153 However, at this stage it is power and legitimacy. While street performance unknown how much attention the steering group is legal, some performers are perceived as lower will give to street performance or what decisions status and their presence may be unwelcome for it might yield. Additionally, its public legitimacy in various reasons. Performers can be perceived this area is somewhat limited, since in the absence as beggars, unskilled, socially inappropriate, or of solutions to persistent street management incompatible with the image of their surroundings. problems, it has been unable to persuade Some performers also see themselves as stakeholders of the benefits of its pedestrianisation marginalised, are wary of involvement in decision- agenda. making, and are passive in their attitude towards change for two main reasons. One is that they feel 4.3.6 Dormant that their needs are not taken seriously, and the Dormant stakeholders are those that possess second is that they fear disruption to the status power, but have relatively little stake in the issue quo as their situation might become even more and also a relatively low level of legitimacy. precarious as a result. Developers and owners of major commercial In the absence of a centralised information properties have large financial resources, political platform, marginalised street performers generally clout, and connections with relevant government have little awareness of what their given rights and departments and elected representatives, such responsibilities are, especially in situations when that their concerns are taken seriously and their

36 complaints acted on quickly whenever possible. and made developers reluctant to take the lead As private property owners, they have control in decision-making processes regarding the over what occurs within their properties and a management of public spaces. relatively wide discretion to decide what activities are permitted in public open spaces under private management within contractual terms and 4.4 Challenges and opportunities in government guidelines. Their relationship with shifting power dynamics street performers is one of mediated tolerance or exclusion – i.e. they have the ability to remove The overall power dynamic is one in which most performers from their premises, but in some cases of the stakeholders are arrayed around the edges invite them to play through selective processes of the Venn diagram (see Figure 4), with very few as part of curated public engagement, corporate in the centre. Most stakeholders possess two out social responsibility and marketing programmes. of three of power, legitimacy and interest, while just three stakeholders can be said to possess all However, unless they have unwanted street three. Even stakeholders that are “dominant” do performers performing directly outside major not actually have the power to alter the existing properties on a regular basis, they have a low to situation. For example, the Police exercise power moderate stake in the issue. Their main concern is within the existing legal framework but cannot the maintenance of order in the public and private make policy changes; businesses have some spaces they manage, to avoid negative impacts ability to influence government actions through on their business and image, And, as noted above, complaints but not necessarily to motivate they usually have the ability to deal with such new policy changes, and the LCSD only has the disruptions through private security or by making authority to make rules within its own venues. complaints to relevant government departments. DCs have some influence over the Government’s service delivery but cannot make regulatory or Some developers do have a stake in placemaking, policy decisions. They tend to be reactive and community building, and promotion of the mainly concerned with complaint avoidance. arts in service of their marketing and branding Additionally, many stakeholders that do have strategies and corporate social responsibility power and legitimacy have limited interest in the objectives. Street performers can play a role in matter. The FEHD considers street performers to helping them fulfil these goals, if managed in ways be peripheral to its concerns, and neighbourhood consistent with their branding and vision for the concern groups (whose influence is fairly limited neighbourhood. Hence, they would moderately in any case) do not consider street performance a benefit from a more orderly street performance high priority unless they receive a large volume of management system in public spaces in the vicinity complaints. of their properties. The stakeholders who have the most to gain or However, these potential benefits are not strong lose from street performance policy, namely street enough to motivate them to take a visible performers and residents, have little power. Street role in pushing for better street performance performers are in an especially weak position management policies. While the rights and because not only do they have little power, their responsibilities of developers are broadly legitimacy is also fairly weak due to negative public respected in the main, they have low legitimacy perceptions. in the specific area of their influence over public space due to public suspicions of government- These dynamics help to explain why little progress business collusion. Previous initiatives, such as has been made on this issue. In order to shift this the failed 2015-2016 proposal to renovate and dynamic, one party needs to acquire enough expand Tsim Sha Tsui’s Avenue of the Stars under power and interest to push through new policies, the management of a non-profit set up by New enough consensus is achieved to make changes, 154 World Development, provoked strong opposition or a combination of the two. As Section 3 showed,

37 Stakeholder analysis

there is room for street performance policy to areas. Proposals that address DC members’ shift in a direction that delivers mutual benefits noise and taste-based concerns may reassure to multiple stakeholders, so that conflicting them that street performance will be better relationships become more cooperative or neutral. managed, and therefore make its presence Hence some degree of consensus should in theory more acceptable. Presenting DC members be possible. In order to aid the crafting of the with information about the benefits of well- consensus, it would be beneficial to address the managed street performance (e.g. to local following issues: business and tourism) may help foster a more balanced view with more realistic expectations regarding complaint prevention. 1. Street performers are in a vulnerable or marginalised position and need to be 4. The administrative silos within the Government productively engaged in order to craft present an obstacle to progress, since no successful policies. This is challenging government departments consider street because they are not a homogenous group, performance a core responsibility. Cross- do not always share the same interests, are bureau meetings, such as those organised by weakly organised, and frequently sceptical the TD under its walkability study, may help to of interaction with authority. However, it is promote multi-disciplinary problem solving. necessary to include them in decision-making Bureaus are more likely to take action if it as policies that take their needs and habits can be shown that consensus is achievable. into account will have a better chance of being However, one of the most challenging realistic, effective, and accepted. issues is for the bureaus to decide on which departments should have jurisdiction over the Conventional consultation methods, such as proposed solutions. It may be beneficial for written consultation documents and holding the Government to set up an office for street formal meetings are unlikely to be successful and public space management, similar to the and engaging with them will require alternative Energising East Kowloon Office, to provide methods such as social media or meeting them high-level leadership and coordination.155 face-to-face at their usual performance spots. However, besides the sticking points described 2. Street performers could potentially become above, the stakeholder analysis shows that there partners in public space management are opportunities to build more cooperative and enhancement if supported through relationships between some street performers engagement and cooperation with busker’s and other stakeholders so that they can all reap associations and arts advocacy groups. This mutual benefits: the business sector stands to may build their capacity for skill development benefit from, and could potentially provide spaces and self-regulation. for street performances that are consistent with their marketing priorities in terms of orderliness 3. DCs are likely to act as a constraint on policies and taste. (Not all street performers would to facilitate street performance, as their benefit – those who fail to conform to businesses’ primary concern is to avoid complaints from expectations would be excluded). Government residents. Shoppers and visitors who enjoy leadership and coordination will be needed to street performance often do not live in the facilitate these benefits, as the stakeholders are district, and therefore have less influence unlikely to act on their own. on DC members’ priorities. DCs may also make it challenging to identify locations 1. Government could provide leadership in that street performers would also consider creating opportunities for collaboration viable, as some residents may object even if between business interests and street proposed locations are far from residential performers. If Government provided quality

38 certification for street performers, they could 4. There is also scope for more direct cooperation set up a platform to match street performers between the Government and NGOs, for with venues provided by business associations example through management of street or developers, enabling the business sector performance zones by busking associations or to benefit from street performance as a other NGOs in the arts or youth development. marketable attraction without having to run a Some overseas examples of this (e.g. Covent busking scheme themselves, as in Singapore or Garden in London) are provided in Section 5. Taipei. Government support for arts organisations could also help to build capacity and skills 2. Some developers and businesses are also among street performers, raising their interested in hosting outdoor performances, standards over the long term. which the Government could facilitate by allowing for greater regulatory flexibility or The next section, Section 5, is an in-depth a simpler permit process for smaller-scale exploration of selected international case studies. events. This could provide more opportunities It focuses on three major regulatory approaches for certain performers. that cities have used to implement the various types of street performance management 3. NGOs could serve as a bridge between street measures suggested in Section 3.6. These performers and the private sector through case studies provide lessons for Hong Kong by partnerships such as that between the MTRC illustrating both successful and less successful and the HKFYG. In this way, they provide a policy measures. They also demonstrate the platform through which street performers institutional structures, practices and cultures that can access otherwise inaccessible space to enable such policies to succeed (or fail), providing showcase their talents. insight into the constraints and opportunities in adapting these policy measures to Hong Kong.

39 5 Comparative International Case Studies

This section will examine selected international enforcement agencies. The selected case studies case studies and explore different approaches include Singapore, Taipei, London, Bath, New towards street performance management. Various York City, Melbourne and Prague. Table 8 below policy measures, including licensing, location- provides a brief summary of the management based regulation, and voluntary approaches will methods used across these cities. More detailed be examined. The framing and rationale behind tabulated summaries of individual cities may be various cities’ policies will also be explored, as found in Appendix 3. will relationships between street performers and

TABLE 8 Summary of street performance management methods across case study cities

Management Licensing system Spatial regulations Voluntary Mixed approach system measures London London Borough of London Borough of Borough of City Taipei Singapore Melbourne New York Prague Bath Kensington & Camden Westminster Chelsea License • • • • • Fee • • • Audition • • • Decibel limit • • • Amplification • • • • • • rules Performance • • • • • • duration limit Fixed pitches • • • • Zoning • • • • • Voluntary code of • • conduct

40 5.1 Licensing-based systems Taipei, Singapore and Melbourne had all previously prohibited street performance, hence their This subsection will examine three cities: Taipei, licensing systems are perceived as a legitimisation Singapore and Melbourne, chosen because they of street performance and liberalisation of public are major cities with significant tourism sectors space rather than a further restriction.157 In with well-developed street performance licensing addition, all public entertainments are subject systems. Singapore and Taipei are especially to government licensing in Singapore,158 where relevant as they are major Asian cities. It should restrictions on content are long established.159 be noted, however, that Melbourne’s licensing system only applies to the city centre under the However, in the US in particular, licensing systems administration of the City of Melbourne (the often meet with strong opposition, and have been metropolitan area consists of 31 municipalities), struck down by courts on freedom of speech and Taipei’s excludes the suburban and rural grounds, although this varies by region.160 The environs of New Taipei City. generally accepted legal standard there is that local governments may not regulate the content 5.1.1 Mechanism and rationale of speech, but only the “time, place and manner Taipei, Singapore and Melbourne require street of public speech” in the least restrictive way 161 performers to apply for a license or permit in order necessary to achieve their objectives. to perform on the street or in public places. While the terms “license” and “permit” are often used 5.1.3 Application process and quality control interchangeably, this report will use “license” to Governments such as Taipei’s162 and Singapore’s163 refer to long-term licenses and “permits” to refer which use street performance as part of their to one-off, short-term permits. Licenses usually city marketing strategies require performers come with conditions on public safety, noise levels, to audition. Taipei’s audition panel consists of pavement obstruction, performance times and Government representatives from the Department locations etc. These rules can be quite complex of Cultural Affairs, public space management and subject to interpretation, which makes them bodies, experts in art and culture, and street impractical as standalone laws or regulations.156 performers’ representatives,164,165 and is famous for having a pass rate of less than 15 per cent.166 Licenses allow governments to grant or deny While members of the public may attend auditions permission to people to perform, providing an and vote, the process has been criticised for being incentive to adhere to the conditions under the subjective and arbitrary.167,168 Auditions are only threat of license cancellation. Street performers held once a year, but once granted, a performer are usually required to display their licenses while does not ever need to re-audition.169 performing so that unlicensed performers can be easily identified. Singapore’s government established its licensing scheme under the National Arts Council in 1997,170 One-off permits, on the other hand, act as a justifying auditions as a means of preventing gatekeeping mechanism by requiring people to go busking from becoming a form of begging.171 through an application process or pay a fee. While Singapore’s pass rate is around 5 out of 6,172 its performers are required to re-audition every 5.1.2 Freedom of expression concerns two years to ensure no deterioration of skill.173 Licensing schemes can be controversial on Auditions are held four times a year. freedom of expression grounds because they put governments in the position of judging Melbourne only requires auditions for a small which performers may perform in public space. number of “premium locations”, and most Opposition on freedom of expression grounds can performers are only required to undergo a basic be a significant constraint, depending on political review to ensure that their act meets Melbourne’s and social context. definition of street performance and will not

41 Comparative International Case Studies

have a detrimental effect on the city’s amenity or Tamsui are the major exceptions, and are among safety.174 Melbourne curates the visitor experience the most heavily frequented. by finessing its definition of busking, which includes playing musical instruments, singing, reciting, Licensed performers must seek permission from magic tricks, juggling, puppetry, mime, and dance, the relevant managing body to use a pitch,183 and and pavement drawing or painting,175 but excludes the process for doing so varies from a simple sign- activities perceived as lacking artistic merit, such up process to lottery systems at the most popular as dressing as costumed characters. Personal pitches.184 services like face painting and portraiture require a different “street entertainment license” to prevent Singapore’s fixed pitches are designated by the large numbers of these vendors congregating National Arts Council through negotiation with so as to reserve space for “a significant musical venue managers such as shopping mall owners.185 element”.176 In spite of these somewhat arbitrary Applicants are authorised to use five pitches of rules, obtaining a license in Melbourne is relatively their own choosing,186 which serves to distribute straightforward.177 Applications are processed year- performers throughout the city.187 Pitches are round and standard permits are normally issued allocated on a first come, first serve basis and on the same day as the safety review,178 which performers are expected to sort out pitch makes it possible for foreign performers to obtain swapping among themselves. temporary licenses at short notice. Singapore and Taipei’s fixed pitch systems share Not all licensing schemes include auditions. In similar problems. By limiting the number of London, the Borough of Camden’s licensing locations, highly lucrative pitches end up over- scheme was designed primarily to limit nuisances, crowded, while others are considered unviable so performers have to pay for licenses depending due to low pedestrian flow. This results in fierce on how disruptive their performances are likely competition for space and noise clashes at popular to be – i.e. those using amplifiers, loud musical pitches. In Taipei, newer artists are pushed out by instruments, or larger groups of people have to established ones, and licensed performers face pay more (see Appendix 3). Approvals are based competition from unlicensed ones.188 In Singapore, on whether there is enough space at the proposed performers complain about pitch hogging and location for the performance not to cause undue having to travel long distances to alternate nuisance or obstruction, the likelihood of the locations when their first choices are occupied. applicant causing nuisance to nearby building In response, in 2019 the National Arts Council occupants, and whether the applicant is viewed as planned to expand popular busking locations to likely to comply with license conditions based on broader areas each containing multiple pitches,189 their previous record.179 and proposed to set up an online balloting system for popular pitches to reduce conflicts.190 5.1.4 Pitch designation Singapore and Taipei have a system of fixed In contrast, Melbourne only designates fixed performance pitches. Singapore had 112 authorised pitches in its premium locations and for circle pitches,180 while Taipei had 66 as of June 2020.181 acts, which require more space. (Circle acts are performances such as acrobatics or magic that Taipei’s pitches are managed by a patchwork of involve gathering audiences together in a circle.) government departments and private bodies such Performers can perform anywhere except in no-go as property owners and business improvement zones and amplification-free zones marked on a districts. Most are in recreational facilities like map,191 providing more flexibility. Overcrowding parks, museums, and selected Mass Rapid Transit of popular pitches is mitigated through license (MRT) stations as few streets have pavements wide conditions requiring performers who use sound to enough to fulfil the legal 8m width requirement.182 maintain at least 30m distance from one another, Pedestrianised streets and plazas in the major and to move to a different location at least 50m commercial districts of Ximending, Xinyi and away every two hours.192

42 5.1.5 Enforcement and cooperation profile. NGOs such as the Street Performance Effective enforcement of a licensing system Experimental Lab help street performers to requires adequate resources and manpower, but develop their skills through workshops and also a high degree of cooperation from license mentorship, partly to improve their chances at holders to translate written rules into behavioural auditions, and partly to give them better access to norms. opportunities in the formal arts scene.198

In Taipei, street performance license conditions In Melbourne, although penalties are harsh (see Appendix 3) are enforced by designated on paper, the government’s soft enforcement staff under the Department of Cultural Affairs. A approach helps to build a cooperative relationship points system is used, whereby if nine demerits with street performers and encourages them to are accumulated, the license is revoked, and the internalise the rules.199 The guidelines encourage performer will not be allowed to reapply for a year. street performers to “amicably” resolve disputes before calling the authorities.200 Enforcement However, there is no specific penalty for officers follow a “pyramid protocol” where they performing without a license. General legislation try to mediate disputes using education and verbal against nuisance and obstruction can be enforced warnings before escalating to written warnings or against unlicensed street performers by the Police. infringement notices. Fines and license revocation Those caught performing in a roadway without are reserved for the most serious cases.201 permission or otherwise causing an obstruction Enforcement officers are also highly visible in can be fined between NT$ 1200-2400 (approx. popular street performance locations, and spend HK$318-635) under the Road Traffic Management most of their time on active patrol, surveillance and Penalty Act.193 Additionally, property damage, and relationship management, rather than simply endangerment of public safety, and noise nuisance responding to complaints.202 Melbourne also can also be penalised under the Social Order and employs a Busking and Program Coordinator to Maintenance Act,194 and the Noise Control Act,195 liaise with the busking community and handle respectively. relevant enquiries.203

Taipei’s licensing system is not effective in Most street performers perceive the rules as fair, excluding unlicensed performers from public space reasonable, and consistent with good etiquette due to insufficient manpower for enforcement between performers. They informally advise each and the difficulty of obtaining licenses to begin other on what is legal or not, and even intervene with. Excessive noise is still a problem at over- in situations involving unlicensed performers or crowded pitches but is limited to a small number people exceeding their time limits.204 of locations, as performers who appear in the wrong places are very conspicuous to the Police. In Singapore, enforcement is carried out by the Cooperation and self-organisation also play normal Police Force, who generally only act in important roles in mediating spatial conflicts response to complaints.205 There is a still fairly between performers.196 high degree of compliance among local street performers, given Singapore’s low tolerance of Taipei’s system creates an elite tier of officially unregulated informality on its streets.206 The sanctioned performers with access to designated National Arts Council can revoke the licenses pitches, performance opportunities at city events, of street performers found in breach the terms and promotional support, which gives them more and conditions. Additionally, unlicensed street security and professional recognition. Many street performance is punishable by heavy fine of performers start out unlicensed but seek to obtain SG$10,000 (approx. HK$56,828) under the a license when they become more established.197 Public Entertainments Act.207 However, licensed An important consequence has been performers’ performers still face significant competition from internalisation of a professional artistic ethos and unlicensed performers.208 a desire to raise Taiwan’s international cultural

43 Comparative International Case Studies

5.1.6 Licensing – Takeaways • Pitch designation Street performance licensing systems require Pitch allocation systems need to be carefully performers to apply for a license in order to designed due to the risk of inadvertently gain permission to perform in the street or in exacerbating space competition between other public places. Based on the case studies of performers, resulting in clashing sound Taipei, Singapore and Melbourne, the following systems and conflicts between performers. considerations should be taken into account for Zoning systems such as Melbourne’s can offer successful implementation. more flexibility. Adequate consultation with all stakeholders, including street performers, • Freedom of expression should be carried out before pitches are As licensing systems place governments in designated. the position of giving or refusing permission to people to perform in public spaces, • Enforcement and cooperation consideration must be given to a city’s social License conditions can be challenging to context and legal standards to judge if doing enforce due to their complexity. Effective so would be politically viable. Auditioning enforcement requires adequate resources and schemes in particular are likely to be proactive supervision of street performance challenged on the grounds of limiting freedom hotspots. Penalties also need to be strong of expression. enough to deter serious violation. However, it also depends heavily on the translation of • Quality Control formal rules into behavioural norms accepted If an audition scheme is implemented, it and reinforced by the performers themselves. is important for the panel to be viewed as Rules and enforcement practices should knowledgeable and unbiased, and the judging be seen by performers as reasonable, fair criteria fair and transparent. Some cities have and useful in facilitating their activities and alternative ways of thinking about quality. mediating conflicts. Street performers should Instead of vetting the skill level of individual be engaged carefully when rules are designed. performers, they focus on curating the mix of street performers that appear in different places. 5.2 Spatial (zoning) approaches

• Application process This subsection will look at Prague, New York City’s If the process for obtaining a license is seen Times Square, and selected London boroughs as excessively difficult, biased, bureaucratic or to examine spatial management approaches to expensive, performers are more likely to ignore street performance. Spatial zoning approaches the scheme and risk performing unlicensed. involve attaching rules and regulations to specified Licenses should be reasonably straightforward geographical locations rather than to individual to obtain. performers.

• Licensing conditions 5.2.1 Mechanism and rationale The key enforcement mechanism of a licensing In spatial zoning approaches, city governments system is that license holders are required to regulate defined geographical areas rather than abide by a set of rules, which typically include performers individually. Such measures are used guidelines about not obstructing pedestrian to protect noise-sensitive locations or manage flow, keeping public spaces clean, maximum conflicting street uses in highly trafficked areas. decibel levels, and performance times. Some They are often implemented in lieu of licensing cities may impose restrictions on offensive due to being less administratively burdensome, content. such as in Kensington and Chelsea (London), which

44 considered licensing in 2017209 but decided to 5.2.3 Activity zoning at different scales implement spatial regulations instead in 2019.210 Spatial regulation can be applied at different scales They are also seen as a viable approach in cities from entire districts to individual streets. Prague’s where licensing would face strong opposition, such 2016 regulations applied to the whole of its city as New York City. centre and were aimed at reducing nuisances to local residents caused by over-tourism and 5.2.2 Jurisdiction preserving the city centre’s image as a heritage Spatially specific regulations require special site. Amplification was banned throughout the authorisation because they are by definition whole area. Loud, high-pitched and ethnic (i.e. inconsistent with the general laws of the non-European) musical instruments were banned jurisdiction. In cities with siloed administrative as they were viewed as too noisy or aesthetically structures, such areas may fall under the incongruous. Specific locations, such as children’s jurisdiction of government departments that playgrounds, places of worship, schools on lack the legal authority to do so, such as in Hong weekdays, health care facilities and boarding Kong and New York City, where their respective platforms for public transport were designated no- transport departments could not regulate street go zones for all performers,218 while certain other performances taking place on roads. In 2016, New areas were deemed off limits to any performances York City addressed this problem by passing a bill involving sound.219 designating Times Square as a pedestrian plaza, empowering the Department of Transportation to New rules were also imposed on the time and ”promulgate reasonable time, place, and manner duration of performances, as well as the amount regulations governing pedestrian plazas in order of space street performers could occupy (see to manage the competing uses of finite public Appendix 3). One interesting feature was the space”.211 use of staggered time slots, allowing acoustic performances to take place alternately every other Other local governments use different legal hour on the left and right banks of the Vltava mechanisms to implement spatially-specific River.220 rules. London boroughs are authorised to designate streets for licensing under the London Kensington and Chelsea’s street performance Local Authorities Act, but only three out of 32 PSPOs targeted major shopping destinations and boroughs have done so (Camden, Hillingdon tourist attractions on a somewhat smaller scale, for and Westminster). Other boroughs such as example Harrods department store and Portobello Hammersmith and Kensington & Chelsea have Market, among others.221 Two types of zones used a different mechanism called Public Spaces were established, “purple zones” where street Protection Orders (PSPOs), which allow local performers were legally required to follow a Code councils to prohibit or require any specified activity of Conduct, and “red zones” identified as “the in a defined public space to prevent behaviours areas of highest detrimental impact” where only that are “unreasonable”, “persistent”, and have quiet performances without any music, amplifiers a “detrimental effect on the quality of life”.212 or percussion were permitted.222 Although PSPOs were meant to address severe problems such as public drunkenness, vandalism In New York City, spatial zoning was implemented and intimidation,213 local governments have on a micro scale in Times Square, which was applied them broadly – they are viewed as easier to singled out due to its unique circumstances. It had enforce than general nuisance legislation214 as they been pedestrianised in 2009223 as part of then- can be enforced through fixed penalty fines (£100 mayor Michael Bloomberg’s policy of public space (approx. HK$998).215 Although local councils frame enhancement, which created opportunities for PSPOs as a lighter alternative to licensing, their large numbers of costumed characters and theatre application to non-dangerous activities has been ticket sellers. Visitors complained of harassment, criticised as abuse of power.216,217 foul language, and occasional physical aggression

45 Comparative International Case Studies

by street performers,224 leading mayor Bill DeBlasio performers have persisted.232 On the other hand, to consider scrapping the pedestrianisation scheme performers say that they were not consulted or altogether in 2015.225 given clear information,233 and that the new rules have negatively impacted their earnings,234 limited As licensing was politically unviable, the Times their access to shade and water,235 and exacerbated Square Alliance (the business coalition behind competition by forcing incompatible performer the Times Square Business Improvement types to share space with each other.236 District) proposed a system of micro-zoning.226 Implemented in 2016, the Department of Insufficient consideration of performers’ needs and Transportation was empowered to set up modes of operation produce unintended results. “designated activity zones” for performers For example, Prague’s blanket ban on amplification and hawkers, defined by painted boxes on the made many musical performances unworkable, pavement. There were also “civic zones” set aside such that many performers unsuccessfully argued for special events and programmes, and “flow for a licensing system instead.237 While City zones” for pedestrian circulation where it was Council members say that the policy has been very illegal to cause an obstruction.227 It was hoped that successful in reducing noise complaints,238 one these measures would allow pedestrian traffic to result was a proliferation of costumed characters, flow more smoothly and visitors who did not want living statues, and bubble blowers. The City Council to engage with performers to avoid them. reacted in 2019 by banning them as “disturbing to the aesthetic appearance” of the city, while 5.2.4 Implementation and unintended some musical instruments like oboes, piccolos and consequences saxophones were were re-legalised.239 As the main rationale for spatial zoning approaches is to mitigate nuisance rather than to promote a Applying restrictions to specific geographical areas city’s culture, these policies tend to be enforced by also risks pushing street performers from one place the Police, by city council officers responsible for to another, especially if they are implemented in minor offences such as littering, and in a few cases an uncoordinated fashion. In London, the adoption by private security guards, rather than by cultural of new rules in one borough prompted performers departments or dedicated busking enforcement to move elsewhere, setting off a chain reaction teams. As a result, these cities tend to have more of tightening rules. After the implementation of antagonistic enforcement approaches with less Camden’s licensing scheme in 2013 and Kensington emphasis on education and outreach. and Chelsea’s PSPOs in 2019, many performers moved to Westminster, over-crowding pitches In New York City, street performers have there,240 and prompting Westminster Council to historically had a contentious relationship with implement its own trial licensing scheme in early the Police. Under its “broken windows” policing 2020. strategy which aggressively targets minor offences,228 street performers are targeted by 5.2.5 Spatial approaches – takeaways Police officers under pressure to issue more Spatial approaches apply rules and regulations fines. A similar dynamic occurs in the UK where to designated geographical locations in order to local councils have been allowed to outsource address street performers’ activities within those the enforcement of PSPOs to private security spaces. They are often implemented as a location- companies,229 which have a financial incentive to specific nuisance mitigation strategy in lieu of issue as many fines as possible.230 licensing. While they may be attractive to local governments because of their lower administrative Micro-zoning in Times Square has been of limited burden and simpler enforcement mechanisms, the effectiveness. The number of arrests of costumed following factors need to be considered in order to performers declined since the implementation,231 implement them successfully and avoid common but this appears to be the result of inconsistent pitfalls. enforcement, as complaints of harassment by

46 • Jurisdiction by localities throughout the UK as an alternative City governments need to be able to to formal regulation in cities such as Bath, York, implement regulations on a targeted Liverpool, and Birmingham, as well as some geographic scale, which may require special London boroughs. This subsection will look legislation. Cities with strong vertical principally at Bath, a heritage tourism-oriented administrative silos may find this more city in south-western England with a vibrant challenging due to different types of land falling street performance culture, and the borough of under the jurisdiction of different government Westminster in Central London which includes departments. major tourist sites such as Covent Garden and Trafalgar Square. Brief examples from other cities • Holistic design may be mentioned where relevant. Unless areas subject to spatial regulations offer truly unique advantages to street performers 5.3.1 Mechanism and rationale (such as New York City’s Times Square), Voluntary approaches are intended to encourage onerous restrictions may push performers into street performers to regulate themselves and each other unregulated sites, resulting in intensified other in the absence of formal regulation. They space competition and negative spill overs. use strategies such as education, engagement Activity zoning should consider city-wide and negotiation in order to promote norms of impacts, including the likely effects on areas behaviour. outside of the affected zones. In the UK, local governments that view street • Engagement with street performers performers positively from a city marketing Street performers need to be involved in the perspective often see voluntary measures as design of the spatial regulations. Rules that a way of facilitating street performance while focus purely on nuisance abatement without maintaining some influence over the “content, considering the needs of performers are quality and duration of the performance”, as well more likely to be met with opposition, limited as the location.241 Street performers also favour compliance, and loophole-seeking behaviour. them a light-touch method that does not involve They may also create perverse incentives with criminalising unauthorised performance.242 They unintended results. can result from negotiations between street performer organisations and local authorities • Responsive and consistent enforcement under which street performers agree to abide Outreach and engagement also need to take by voluntary guidelines in order to avoid the place during implementation and enforcement implementation of more restrictive regulations.243 to ensure that the rules are well understood. There are two main voluntary methods used in the Enforcement officers need to be adequately UK: voluntary codes of conduct, and management trained to explain the rules and enforce them by street performers' associations (SPAs). consistently, which may be challenging if the regulations vary from place to place. Proactive 5.3.2 Voluntary codes of conduct supervision, education and mediation are Voluntary codes of conduct are non-statutory needed to maintain regulated areas as viable guidelines issued by local governments. Bath has and attractive performance sites. had one in place since the late 1980s.244 Street performers are advised to perform between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m., move to a different location every 5.3 Voluntary approaches hour, keep their volume to ambient noise levels, avoid repetitive performances, clean up after This subsection will examine voluntary approaches themselves, and avoid blocking shop windows, to encourage self-regulation among street doorways and fire exits. Street performers can performers. This approach is commonly used accept donations but are not supposed to actively

47 Comparative International Case Studies

solicit money, nor sell CDs or other merchandise On public land, Westminster Council decided in without a street vendor’s license. At Bath Abbey, a 2019 to delegate Trafalgar Square’s management religious site, red and green lights have been set up to the Westminster SPA as part of a multi-pronged outside to show when religious services are taking proposal to regulate street performance in the place so that performers may avoid the site when borough more closely.254 Westminster proposed the red light is on.245 a mixed approach requiring licenses at a number of major tourist attractions including Leicester Local governments use codes of conduct to Square, Chinatown, Oxford Street and Piccadilly reinforce norms and to educate street performers Circus, management through SPAs at Trafalgar on expected standards of behaviour. For Square and retain Covent Garden, and adopting example, performers are advised to be mindful a voluntary code of conduct.255 Under this pilot of other street users and to try to resolve scheme, performers will be asked to join the conflicts courteously.246 Members of the public Westminster SPA in order to perform at Trafalgar are encouraged to hand out copies to street Square, stick to three designated pitches there, performers if they feel that the guidelines are not abide by the code of conduct, and pro-actively tell being followed.247 other performers to adjust their performances if necessary.256 However the effectiveness of However, codes of contact are also used to guide this scheme is uncertain due to a breakdown in local enforcement priorities. Performers who relations between the local government and the adhere to the code are left alone by enforcement street performance community discussed below. officers, while those who ignore it are more likely to be charged under existing noise, nuisance and 5.3.4 Engagement for effective begging, or antisocial behaviour legislation.248 implementation Voluntary codes of conduct depend on effective 5.3.3 Management by street performers’ cooperation with street performers. Bath’s code of associations conduct was developed through agreement with Another voluntary method is through cooperation multiple stakeholders including representatives between site managers (private or public) of the busking community, the local government, and membership-based street performers’ the Bath Business Improvement District, and associations. Busking associations are allowed Bath Abbey. An open and respectful engagement to take on the responsibility of managing a site process is necessary to build trust, identify areas of by establishing an informal monopoly over an common ground and reach compromises. If street area, and performers who wish to perform performers feel a sense of ownership, they can there are strongly encouraged to join. Members become effective advocates for best practices.257 monitor each other and intervene to prevent problems, from giving advice and mediating Street performers are more likely to adhere to disputes to coercive tactics like standing in front a voluntary code if they perceive it as useful in of problematic performers to prevent them from mediating conflicts with residents, businesses and receiving donations.249 other performers.258 Effective engagement can also result in out-of-the-box solutions such as Bath Covent Garden in Westminster250 is run by the Abbey’s red and green light system. In another Covent Garden SPA and the Courtyard Musicians example, Berlin’s Mauerpark has been a site for Association in collaboration with Covent Garden’s Sunday karaoke concerts since 2009.259 When new management company, Capco.251 Interested housing was built in the area and residents began performers must join the association, audition, to make noise complaints, the singers formed a purchase insurance, sign a code of conduct, street performer’s association, and working with and submit to a risk assessment.252 The joint the local government, created moveable sound management organises the auditions and sets the barriers that were used to shield the residences.260 schedule for different pitches on the site.253

48 Street performers are less likely to cooperate if 5.4 Commonalities, differences and guidelines are imposed from above without their relevance to Hong Kong input and if the engagement process is perceived as biased. In Westminster, the stakeholder engagement No matter which regulatory approach is taken by process broke down in late 2019 to early 2020 the cities described above, they tend to share a when street performers were excluded from key certain number of practical street performance discussions about the questions to be included in management rules. This shows that cities tend to 261 the consultation document. Relations soured to encounter similar problems and adopt relatively the point where street performers threatened to get similar measures to address them. It is the themselves arrested in order to waste the Council’s combination and details of the rules that differ, as 262 resources. Under such circumstances, neither the well as the method of implementation. Basic rules proposed mandatory nor voluntary measures are tend to include: likely to be observed. a) Noise limits: Some cities specify decibel levels, Another challenge for voluntary cooperation is while others use more descriptive guidelines. street performers’ own organisational capacity. Some cities control the use of amplification in They are a diverse group whose interests lieu of, or in addition to noise limits, by limiting sometimes diverge, and agreements made the types of amplifiers permitted or the between one subset and the Government may be locations where they can be used. ignored by others. SPAs themselves need to be open, inclusive, and internally democratic in order b) Obstruction of streets and public spaces: to give all performers an equal chance to have a Obstruction rules range from general 263 say. legislation to more specific guidelines for street performers. The latter often call on performers 5.3.5 Voluntary approaches – takeaways not to set up in front of building entrances, • Voluntary approaches towards street pedestrian crossings, and public transport performance management are a more stops. A few cities specify how much area liberal and flexible alternative to statutory performers are allowed to occupy. regulations. c) Time limits: These usually specify the hours • Voluntary codes of conduct are non-statutory of the day when performances can take place. guidelines that encourage street performers to Some cities also place limits on the duration of regulate themselves and each other. performances, requiring street performers to move locations after a certain amount of time. • They also serve as guidelines for law enforcement priorities - those who adhere to d) Donations: All of the cities reviewed in the the code will not be prosecuted under existing case study allowed street performers to accept legislation. donations but had rules against aggressive solicitation of tips. However, different cities • SPAs can be delegated the responsibility to treat sellers of artwork differently. Some, monitor and organise street performance such as Singapore and Taipei, recognise in certain areas to allocate pitches fairly and them as street performers and permit them manage nuisances. to sell artwork created live. Others such as Melbourne and London treat them as hawkers • The success of voluntary measures depends and require them to acquire street vending on a trusting and collaborative relationship licenses. between local governments and street performers’ representatives. Ongoing e) Location: Most of the cities examined have engagement is necessary in order to produce location rules, but with wide variations in solutions that are seen as reasonable and how and where they are implemented. therefore more likely to be complied with.

49 Comparative International Case Studies

Some cities like Singapore and Taipei prohibit Among the overseas examples, there is less street performances everywhere except in consensus on whether and how to regulate the designated locations, whereas others take the quality and content of performances: opposite approach, allowing street performers to set up anywhere except for in restricted f) Quality control: There is wide variation in the locations. A few cities such as Melbourne degree to which cities exercise quality control require performers to maintain a certain over street performance, ranging from audition distance from each other to prevent pitch systems in Taipei and Singapore, to subtler overcrowding. limitations on acceptable types of performance in Prague and Melbourne, to none in New York Hong Kong seems to have similar problems in City and London. terms of noise and obstruction to other cities, but on a greater scale. While Hong Kong is more g) Community standards: Some cities densely built-up, other cities also have mixed-use regulate the social acceptability of street urban centres with a large tourist volume, which performances, including rules against offensive results in street performances taking place in close language, discriminatory speech, sexualised proximity to residences (e.g. London) and in very performances etc. Other cities do not have any crowded public spaces (Times Square, New York). content regulations beyond general obscenity Hence, street performance rules that can work and public safety laws. For example, New York in busy mixed-use city centres overseas should City’s “desnudas” are not against the law as theoretically work in Hong Kong. Indeed, such rules female toplessness is legal there. have already been adopted at the WKCD Art Park (see Section 1.4),264 and have been tested with Not all cities had serious concerns about low positive results by DC member Yu Tak-po at the performance quality as in Hong Kong, where it is Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct shortly before its a major priority for many if not all stakeholders. closure in 2018 (see Section 3.3.1).265 The obstacles There were some similarities between Hong to implementing such regulations are not practical Kong and Prague, where residents had concerns but institutional and jurisdictional, as will be about preserving the city’s image from excessive discussed in Section 6. commercialisation and over-tourism, and with Singapore, where the audition system is intended There is one issue unique to Hong Kong: Donations to counter the perception of street performance as for street donations are a matter of debate here, begging. Issues of taste and quality are likely to be due to negative perceptions about profit-seeking a major source of debate in Hong Kong, and there performers (as discussed in Section 3), but are needs to be in-depth public consultation in order uncontroversial in all the overseas examples. to decide whether there is sufficient public support Whereas some of the overseas examples have had for mandatory quality control. Implementing an complaints about performers aggressively soliciting audition system such as Taipei’s or Singapore’s will money, in Hong Kong the solicitation is less overtly also be challenging within Hong Kong’s institutional aggressive, so voluntary donations are also seen as context, discussed below in Section 6. a problem.

50 6 Constraints and Opportunities in Hong Kong’s Institutional Context

Sections 3 and 4 analysed street performance activities constitutes a “lawful excuse” to occupy problems in Hong Kong, identified opportunities public space, so lacking a permit in and of itself does to align interests and named a range of possible not violate the law. The Police therefore do not solutions. Section 5 looked at overseas examples check whether street performers have permits.267 to better understand the effectiveness of different strategies and implementation methods. However, the ruling left open the possibility of Here, Section 6 will deal with the “how” of implementing a licensing scheme as it agreed that implementation in Hong Kong’s institutional the Government has a legitimate aim in ensuring context. The objective of this section is not to public safety and order in Hong Kong’s crowded judge the desirability of any of these options, since urban environment.268 A more comprehensive that should be determined by the stakeholders, licensing scheme would be possible as long as but to outline the institutional challenges in the restrictions were proportional to their aims. implementing the three regulatory approaches: However, enforceability would be questionable as licensing, spatial regulation or voluntary measures. it is somewhat doubtful that performers could be prosecuted simply for being unlicensed. This might create a paradoxical situation in which it would be 6.1 The legal context easier to penalise licensed performers for breaking their license conditions than it would be to penalise As noted in Section 1, street performance unlicensed performers, creating a situation similar is currently governed under a patchwork of to Taipei’s. The system therefore could not rely legislation concerning nuisances, noise and on punitive deterrents but would have to confer obstruction, summarised in Figure 5. benefits on performers in order to give them an incentive to participate. 6.1.1 Legal constraints and opportunities in adopting a licensing approach Geographically specific licensing schemes may Section 4(15) of the Summary Offences Ordinance avoid this constraint, as those without licenses are currently forms the basis of a poorly utilised one- not completely barred from performing, but only off permit system for musical performances.266 excluded from specified areas. The TPPE and LCSD The legislation as written only refers to musical currently run their own limited licensing schemes. instruments, excluding a broad range of other It may therefore be more feasible to implement performance types. The law is unenforceable licensing requirements in selected street due to a 2015 High Court Ruling, which found performance hot spots, although the scheme that performers cannot be prosecuted for lacking would have to be designed carefully to ensure that a permit unless they cause undue noise and the licensed areas remain sufficiently attractive to obstruction. It argued that engaging in cultural performers to avoid pushing them into unregulated areas.

51 Constraints and Opportunities in Hong Kong’s Institutional Context

FIGURE 5 Legislation affecting street performance

SUMMARY OFFENCES ORDINANCE (CAP. 228) NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCE (CAP. 400) Section 4(15): It is an offence to, “without lawful Section 4(1):it is an offence to make or cause noise authority or excuse”, play musical instruments “in any “which is a source of annoyance to any person” public street or road” except with written permission between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. from the Commissioner of Police which he may issue “in his absolute discretion”. Section 5(1): It is an offence to cause annoyance to any person at any time of day through noise from Section 4C: Requires police permit for lion, dragon and musical instruments, record players, radios, televisions, unicorn dances in public places. amplifiers, games and pastimes, trades or business.

Section 12A: It is an offence to “take part in, provide Enforced by: HKPF. EPD has the authority to set decibel or manage any public live performance of an indecent, guidelines for noise from construction sites, commercial or industrial premises, but not from domestic premises or public obscene, revolting or offensive nature.” places. EPD’s “Noise Control Guidelines for Music, Singing and Instrument Performing Activities” apply to fixed performance Section 4A: it is an offence, “without lawful authority venues, not public places and advise that noise should not or excuse”, to set out anything in a public place which exceed 10 dBA above background level measured at 1m from “obstructs, inconveniences or endangers” any person or building exterior of noise sensitive receivers between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. vehicle.

Enforced by: HKPF, FEHD (Section 4A only)

PUBLIC HEALTH AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES PLEASURE GROUNDS REGULATION (CAP. 132 BC) ORDINANCE (CAP. 132) Section 22: It is an offence to obstruct or place any Governs the management of recreational public open object in the street that obstruct “any scavenging spaces under the jurisdiction of the Leisure Services or conservancy or any street sweeper acting in the Branch of the LCSD. performance of his duty”. Section 25:prohibits singing, making music, or playing Enforced by: Street cleaning teams of FEHD music on any apparatus without the written permission of the Director of the LCSD. Section 83B: It is an offence to hawk without a license issued by the FEHD. Hawking is defined as “trading in a Section 33:authorises the staff of the LCSD to remove public place” by “selling or exposing for sale any goods, persons from pleasure grounds if the staff see them wares, or merchandise”, or samples thereof, or “hiring breaking the regulations, if the staff cannot ascertain or offering to hire his skill in handicraft or his personal their name and address (necessary for prosecution), or services”. Street performers such as portrait artists are if the staff believe that they will continue to break the not normally considered hawkers as long as they do not rules. engage overtly in monetary exchange.

Enforced by: Hawker control teams of FEHD Enforced by: LCSD, Leisure Services Branch

CIVIC CENTRES REGULATION (CAP. 132F) WKCDA (PUBLIC OPEN SPACES) BYLAW (CAP. 601A) Governs the management of civic centres, including Governs the management of public open spaces under outdoor areas, under the management of the Cultural the purview of the WKCDA. This currently includes the Services Branch of the LCSD, e.g. Hong Kong Cultural WKCD Art Park. Centre, the Sha Tin Town Hall, Tuen Mun Town Hall. Section 10: Events, defined as “any event, exhibition or Section 10 (1b) of the Regulation prohibits anyone from performance conducted within a public open space” selling or offering for sale any “refreshment, commodity require permission from the WKCDA. This empowers the or article” without authorisation from the Director of WKCDA to set up its own street performance scheme. the LCSD.

Enforced by: LCSD, Cultural Services Branch Enforced by: WKCDA

52 Some cities such as London and Boston have rides) to be licensed, with the exception of street performance licensing schemes in their venues under the management of LCSD and the underground metro systems. However, doing HAD.270 TPPEs are required for events like street so in Hong Kong will be difficult from a legal and festivals, which involves the organisers submitting regulatory standpoint, and may only be feasible to-scale plans of the set-up and undergoing a in yet-to-be-built MTR stations. Performances multi-departmental safety and crowd control are currently only permitted at one purpose-built evaluation.271 The Government could partner performance space in Hong Kong Station. Any with an external organisation to approve TPPEs in fixture that is placed inside an MTR station must be part-time pedestrianised zones, giving the partner approved by the Safety and Security Coordinating organisation the responsibility of managing street Committee (SSCC), which is chaired by the performance and other recreational activities Electrical and Mechanical Services Department and during operating hours. includes the Fire Services Department, Buildings Department, Highways Department, the Police, For public spaces divided along complicated and the MTRC.269 Standards for fire safety and jurisdictional lines such as the Tsim Sha Tsui preventing obstruction to pedestrian flow are very and Central waterfronts, another workaround strict, so public performances which are variable in could be for government departments to make their size and activity type would be unlikely to be an agreement to place them under unified approved unless they take place on purpose-built management by the LCSD for the purposes stages. This would be in addition to acquiring a of activity management if not for physical TPPE license (discussed below in 6.1.2). maintenance. One precedent for this is the LCSD’s management of the former Wan Chai Dog Park on 6.1.2 Legal constraints and opportunities in behalf of the Civil Engineering and Development implementing spatial (zoning) Department, which was in charge of the site.272 approaches The most significant legal constraint in 6.1.3 Legal constraints and opportunities in implementing spatial management is that public implementing voluntary approaches streets are regulated by the Road Traffic (Traffic The implementation of voluntary approaches Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G), which do not by definition has relatively few legal constraints. enable the TD to regulate pedestrians outside However, there may be some complications in the scope of traffic safety. Spatially-specific street implementation. For example, if the Government performance regulations would require new cooperates with NGOs to manage performance legislation or significant amendment to existing zones through the TPPE mechanism described legislation. In New York City, pedestrian plazas are above, small NGOs may find it difficult to fulfil the designated by law to enable their Department of requirements, such as submitting detailed site Transportation to make rules for them. A similar plans and providing first-aid services, as the TPPE precedent in Hong Kong is the Director of the FEHD was not designed for small-scale events such as or the Transport Commissioner’s ability to designate street performance. streets as hawker areas under the Hawker Regulation (Cap. 132AI) and the Public Health and A voluntary code of conduct would not face Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132). any legal constraints if it were intended only as advisement for street performers, but if the In the absence of new legislation, one workaround Government intended to use it as an administrative may be to use the TPPE licensing system under guideline for the enforcement of existing laws, the FEHD. The Places of Public Entertainment there may be some legal ambiguity regarding Ordinance (Cap. 172) requires all places of public the implementation of decibel limits. The Noise entertainment (“public entertainments” includes Control Ordinance (Cap. 400) allows the EPD performances, dance parties, exhibitions, circuses, to issue technical guidelines for noise from lectures, sports contests, bazaars, and amusement construction sites and non-domestic premises, but

53 Constraints and Opportunities in Hong Kong’s Institutional Context

not for noise coming from homes or public places. policy falls under the HAB, whose responsibilities Enforcement for the latter is done by the Police also encompass youth development, social on a “subjective nuisance basis”273 according to harmony, civic education, district administration, professional observation, circumstantial evidence building management, hotel licensing, gambling, and witness statements.274 It is unclear whether advisory and statutory bodies, and sport. An aide the Police would be able to refer to a non-statutory for Ma Fung-kwok, the LegCo representative decibel guideline made by a different department for the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and when enforcing the Noise Control Ordinance.275 A Publication Functional Constituency, suggested minor legal amendment allowing the EPD to issue that a new Commissioner for Culture be created, technical guidelines for street performance would to parallel the existing Commissioner for Sports, to resolve the matter. serve as the dedicated person overseeing cultural policy.277 He sees scope for a more proactive policy from the HAB to manage street performance as 6.2 The administrative context part of an overall effort to rebrand Hong Kong as a cultural city in addition to a prominent global Hong Kong’s administrative structure is relatively financial centre.278 centralised, siloed, and hierarchical. Government departments are organised under policy bureaus, At present, implementation of cultural policy is each with their separate responsibilities defined divided between various government departments by legislation. All policy and regulatory decisions and agencies, none of which are well-positioned to are made at the territorial level, with DCs providing implement a city-wide street performance policy. advice and carrying out local minor works. This These include the LCSD, the WKCDA, the Arts contrasts with city governments in London and Development Council (ADC) and the Hong Kong Melbourne where some decisions can be made at Academy of Performing Arts (HKAPA). The LCSD a more local level. These municipal governments is primarily a facilities management organisation also have more discretion in deciding how to with no responsibility outside of its cultural and organise local services, which makes it easier to recreational venues; the WKCDA’s jurisdiction implement measures like hiring council officers is geographically limited to West Kowloon, the for the express purpose of supervising busking ADC provides support and funding to the arts hot-spots or to liaise with the public on street through grants and programmes, but focuses on performance. high art and does not see street performance as within its remit, and the HKAPA provides In Hong Kong, there is more limited scope formal undergraduate and graduate education to for slotting new initiatives into pre-existing performing artists. departmental structures without amending legislation or passing new laws. This creates The HAD, which is under the HAB, has challenges especially when an issue touches on responsibility for district administration and multiple departments’ areas of responsibility coordination between departments and DC at yet is not the primary focus of any. As previously the local level. As the liaison with DCs, it receives noted, the enforcement of regulations relevant local concerns and complaints about street to street performance falls mainly on the HKPF performance, and coordinates responses by the and the FEHD, neither of which see it as a core Police, FEHD and LCSD. However, while it facilitates responsibility. Additionally, neither have any cultural events at the district level, it does not expertise in cultural policy. Therefore, street have direct responsibility for the implementation performance in Hong Kong is not considered of cultural policy, nor has the ability to make local from a holistic cultural policy or placemaking rules. perspective. The TD handles planning of pedestrian spaces, Hong Kong does not have a bureau or department but has no authority to manage pedestrian of culture. The Government considered but activities outside the scope of traffic safety. decided against setting one up in 2012.276 Cultural

54 Therefore, while the TD has perhaps the strongest non-LCSD street performance hotspots. However, interest in addressing street performance since there are relatively few such locations in management problems so that it can further its Hong Kong, this would be a more focused task than pedestrian planning agenda, it cannot address the OTC’s responsibility for monitoring all bars and them directly. TD hopes to begin a process of restaurants in Hong Kong. inter-bureau coordination by raising the matter of street management in its interdepartmental Alternatively, a street performance licensing walkability policy steering group involving FEHD, policy could be taken as an opportunity to the Police Force, HAD, and HYD. This group is to be revamp a branch of the FEHD as a broader street established in order to discuss cross-departmental management body, perhaps separate from its policy issues related to TD’s ongoing walkability food safety and public sanitation functions. The consultancy study.279 FEHD’s street management functions are inherited from the old Urban and Regional Councils, 6.2.1 Administrative constraints and which focused heavily on public hygiene and the opportunities in implementing a control of illegal hawking. However, hawking has licensing approach declined significantly since the 1970s due to the The biggest challenge in setting up a city-wide non-renewal of licenses.281 Nowadays, there are licensing scheme is that it is both administratively also other inadequately regulated informal street complex and unclear which department should activities such as touting, commercial promotion, implement it. A licensing system would require a and sales of third-party services (e.g. mobile body with the power to review applications, issue phone contracts) that fall outside the definition licenses, enforce the rules, and to revoke licenses of hawking. Mary Melville argues that excess if necessary. If an audition process is involved, this manpower in hawking control teams could be body would need to form an audition panel in a fair reallocated to other priorities as there is very little and transparent manner acceptable to the public. hawking left in her district.282

DC member Yu Tak-po argues it would be 6.2.2 Administrative constraints and necessary to establish a Department or Bureau opportunities in implementing a spatial for Culture in order to do so. However, it may be (zoning) approach possible, if challenging, to locate such functions Unlike licensing, a spatial regulation approach does within the existing departmental structure, such not necessarily have to involve the establishment as by setting up an office within HAD to administer of a new government body. It could be done within the programme, and to establish an audition panel existing departmental frameworks. However, as under an advisory committee framework. DCs lack rule-making powers of their own, the Government would have to provide the legal The Government would also need to consider framework as well as leadership and coordination. how the licensing system should be enforced. If enforcement responsibility continues to be New legislation or amendments to existing shared between the Police and the FEHD, this legislation would be necessary in order to would have manpower implications for both authorise an existing government department, departments, and involve some redefinition of such as the HAD, to implement local rules, the their duties. Alternatively, the Government could details of which could be developed in consultation set up a dedicated enforcement team. This would with DCs and local stakeholders. There is an be akin to Taipei’s approach, or similar to Hong opportunity for DCs to advise on suitable locations Kong’s Office of Tobacco Control (OTC) under the for street performers, noise-sensitive locations, Health Department which enforces anti-smoking and other specific local considerations.283 legislation in bars and restaurants.280 If this option Stakeholders could provide detailed local is chosen, there would need to be sufficient knowledge on suitable public spaces that could be resources and manpower devoted to active adapted for street performers’ use, for example supervision, mediation and education efforts in by providing better shade, seating, storage for instruments and access to refreshments.284

55 Constraints and Opportunities in Hong Kong’s Institutional Context

In the absence of new or amended legislation, including the Police, the LCSD, and the FEHD. It DCs could still provide guidance on areas where may also be feasible for District Offices in districts enforcement efforts should be prioritised, and heavily frequented by street performers to assign areas where street performers can be more a staff member as a community liaison on street tolerated, in a similar manner to how DCs have performance matters. helped the HAD compile a list of tolerated zones and blackspots for pavement shop displays.285 It should also be possible to use voluntary guidelines to prioritise enforcement under existing A coordinated territory-wide zoning strategy would legislation, as is done in cities such as Bath. This even be preferable to separate local efforts, as would not require any reorganisation of existing the example of London shows the latter can cause government departments or the establishment unintended spillover effects. A more coordinated of new bodies, but would require some approach could mitigate ad-hoc “not-in-my- interdepartmental coordination at the district backyard” dynamics which push street performers level. from place to place. The Government could begin with pilot projects in selected districts, which if However, the effectiveness of voluntary guidelines successful, could become a model for others. is debateable, since these would not be legally enforceable. While administrative guidelines could There also an opportunity for the LCSD to take be drawn up to prioritise enforcement of existing a more proactive approach in managing street noise and obstruction legislation, any guidelines performance across its different recreational and that are not directly related to these matters cultural venues, given its administrative discretion. might be subject to dispute or disregarded. Street Parks should be considered as part of an overall performers interviewed were pessimistic about web of urban public spaces, and policymakers self-regulation, saying that bad actors simply need to consider that imposing stricter rules in ignored any attempts to reason with them.286 In parks may push street performers into other areas the UK, street performers often have an incentive that are less easily regulated, such as transport to cooperate with voluntary guidelines to prevent interchanges, footbridges, pedestrianised streets more formal restrictions from being imposed, but and waterfronts. Parks could therefore be this situation does not apply in Hong Kong. strategically used to accommodate public demand for street performance away from residential Other voluntary efforts could be implemented areas, while providing more extensive support, to promote higher quality street performances. amenities and supervision. The LCSD and the WKCDA or even the Arts Development Council could also potentially carry 6.2.3 Administrative constraints and out programmes to develop street performers opportunities in implementing voluntary skills while meeting the demand for affordable or approaches free entertainment in public spaces, for example There are relatively few administrative constraints by organising talent shows, open mics, and busking in implementing voluntary approaches such as a festivals. Such programmes could encourage street performer code of conduct. The HAB, as performers to improve their skills through fostering the bureau with oversight over cultural policy, competition and raising public expectations for can lead consultations with street performers, performance standards.287 DCs, residents and businesses in order to develop voluntary guidelines.

Voluntary guidelines need to be accompanied by public education and outreach to promote take-up among street performers. District Offices are well- positioned to carry out this work in cooperation with the relevant government departments,

56 7 Conclusion and Next Steps

Based on preliminary interviews with stakeholders, The concept of licensing was not universally there appears to be relatively broad agreement supported, but received a significant degree of between street performers, businesses, developers, acceptance even among performers. However, and residents’ representatives that there needs there were concerns about how feasible it would to be more proactive management of street be to implement. There also appeared to be cross- performance in Hong Kong. Contrary to the sectoral support for spatial solutions by designating supposition that street performers would oppose areas for street performers, although it will be regulation of their activities, many see the need challenging to identify specific spaces acceptable to for the Government to implement ground rules to most parties. Voluntary measures were suggested mediate conflicts with other stakeholders and each by some, although others expressed doubts that other. Several of them explicitly drew a link between street performers have the organisational and social the need to improve the image of street performers capacity to regulate themselves. and their freedom to use public space. Stakeholders in the business sector also see potential for street It will probably be more challenging to achieve performance to become a placemaking asset, consensus on issues of taste and quality. A significant thereby creating mutual benefits. However, number of stakeholders had strong feelings against leadership from the Government is needed in order dai ma groups and wanted future street performance to realise these benefits since the stakeholders are policies to address socially unacceptable behaviour, unwilling or unable to act on their own. while others argued that it would be unfair to discriminate against Mainland immigrants, the elderly, This leads to the question of whether the and low-income residents on grounds of subjective Government is able to implement proposed taste. Another potentially tricky issue is whether and solutions even if non-government stakeholders how street performers should be allowed to receive favoured them, given the legal and administrative donations. Receiving donations is viewed by some constraints described in Section 6 and the lack of stakeholders as an incentive for antisocial behaviour priority given to street performance as an issue. and an illegitimate use of public space. However, Therefore, as policy options are narrowed down restricting it would likely have a negative effect on a in next phase of the study, it will be necessary to broad cross-section of street performers. There are explore their perceived feasibility as well as their also questions about whether such restrictions would desirability. be practical to implement.

The form that street performance regulation The next phase of this study will explore policy should take is not yet clear at this stage of the options with stakeholders systematically through a study. There appears to be a broad consensus over two-stage Delphi survey, explained in Section 2.3. It the issue of noise. A decibel standard seems likely will present stakeholders with policy ideas obtained to receive broad acceptance, although amplifier through this interview process and from overseas restrictions will probably be more controversial. examples in order to test their level of support and perceived feasibility.

57 Appendix 1

Table of interviewees

Name Job/role Organisation/affiliation Sector Jay Lee Street performer/musician City Echo (Founder) Civic/ Social Pong Yat-ming Street performer Let’s Start (Founder) Civic/ Social Heyman Street performer/musician Civic Gustavo Street performer/stencil artist Civic Anna Street performer/travelling artist Civic Mr. Kong Street performer Civic Mong Kok Roman Street performer Civic Yan-yan Street performer Civic K.K. Street performer Civic Arrvin Street performer/musician Civic Ah Sun Street performer Civic Yu Tak-po DC Member Civic Party Public Cheng Lai-king DC Member (Central & Western Democratic Party Public District) June Ng Civil servant Walkability Task Force, Public Transport Department Ms. Y Civil servant Leisure and Cultural Services Public Department, Cultural Services Branch Mr. Y Civil servant Food and Environmental Hygiene Public Department (Mong Kok) Ms. H Civil Servant Food and Environmental Hygiene Public Department (Yau Tsim) Mr. H Civil Servant Food and Environmental Hygiene Public Department (Yau Tsim) Mr. S Legislative Council Member’s aide Ma Fung-kwok’s Office, New Public Century Forum Ms. A Representative of business A non-profit business chamber Private association Cherry Wong DC Member (Central & Western Civic Party Public District) Michelle Ho, Non-profit organisation staffer Hong Kong Federation of Youth Social representative of Groups HKFYG Dorothy Lau Manager – Corporate MTR Corporation Limited Semi-Private Responsibility Simpson Lo Senior Manager - Corporate MTR Corporation Limited Semi-Private Responsibility Mr. C Spokesperson Private Developer A Private Mr. L Spokesperson Private Developer A Private - Public Affairs Office Private Developer B Private Mary Melville Resident, spokesperson for Tsim Sha Tsui Residents’ Concern Civic neighbourhood concern group Group Ms. L Resident, representative of A community concern group Social/ Civic neighbourhood concern group

58 Appendix 2

Interest/power/legitimacy stakeholder categorisations

Stakeholders Interests Power Legitimacy Category Street HIGH LOW LOW-MODERATE Vulnerable performers • Survival/Income • Divided • Inconsistent recognition (IL)/ • Exposure • Resource-poor of street performers’ Marginal (I)/ • Recreational • Lack of access to rights by other Forceful (PI) entertainment information on relevant stakeholders • Reputation laws; usually learned • Sometimes appreciated • Self-discipline through trial and error but suffer reputational • Public education • Can sometimes damage due to minority successfully evade of bad actors or disregard law • Sometimes portrayed as enforcement efforts misusers of public space • Some have the ability to bully other performers Residents HIGH LOW-MODERATE HIGH Vulnerable (individuals) • Prevention of noise and • Disorganised • Right to a livable (IL) nuisance disturbance • Resource-limited: environment widely • Concern for complaints only recognised by other neighbourhood image stakeholders • Favour stricter regulation or even suppression of street performance Artistic HIGH LOW MODERATE Vulnerable concern • Solidarity focused • Limited resources • Seen as representing (IL), but with groups (e.g. • Support and education • Donation and volunteer good quality artists, potential for City Echo & • Survival dependent but views not well partnerships Let’s Start • Promotion of street • Limited social and understood or with better- busker groups) culture political connections appreciated by wider established • Professionalisation of public NGOs or street performance • Influential mostly private sector (raise standards) within a subset of (mostly younger) street performers and artistic community • Limited impact on society and the overall street performance culture Neighbour- LOW-MODERATE MODERATE HIGH Influential hood concern • Do not see street • Deep knowledge • Widely recognised rights (PL) groups performance as high of government to maintaining a livable priority issue unless administration and environment neighbourhood public consultation • Generally well-regarded disruption is serious mechanisms • Main focus on improving • Moderate lobbying livability for residents power – can make views (urban planning, public known but inconsistent space, public facilities) ability to sway decision- • Prevention of nuisances makers and disruptions to daily • Active relations with life DC members, NGOs, or • Upholding standards of other political actors social acceptability and good taste • Mixed feelings towards the impact of pedestrianisation

59 APpendix 2

Stakeholders Interests Power Legitimacy Category Business HIGH MODERATE/HIGH HIGH Dominant associations • Prevent unauthorised/ • Work closely with • Well respected by other (PIL) unplanned street relevant governmental stakeholders performers from departments regarding • Right to friendly business appearing in front of street management, environment recognised shops event planning, public by most stakeholders, • Strongly opposed to dai safety especially decision- ma groups • Government makers • May welcome planned departments usually and curated street responsive to complaints events featuring invited • Relatively strong street performers lobbying power • In favour of a regulatory • Moderate financial system to impose order resources on street performance • Image-centric attitudes towards building a tourist attraction Property LOW-MODERATE HIGH LOW-MODERATE Dormant (P) developers • Not currently heavily • Financially and politically • General right to affected by street resourceful business-friendly performances in district • Sufficient manpower to environment recognised • Prevent disturbance to manage their POPS by most stakeholders tenants & customers; • Cooperative • However, viewed only invited performers working relations with suspicion by welcome on premises with governmental public regarding their • Interest in placemaking enforcement officers influence over public and sustainable space. Eager to avoid development as part of provoking accusation of corporate image building government-business & corporate social collusion responsibility • Would benefit from policies that promote orderly, quality- controlled street performance HKPF MODERATE MODERATE/HIGH HIGH Dominant • Strong interest in • Power to enforce • The first go-to (PIL) keeping noise complaints relevant laws by governmental body to about street performers warning, moving, or file complaints low issuing summons against • Well recognised • Interest in minimizing performers responsibilities manpower and • Potentially fast paperwork spent on deployment of enforcement against enforcement officers petty offences • Otherwise tolerant attitude towards street performers • Managing street performance not seen as a core responsibility unless public safety is concerned

60 Stakeholders Interests Power Legitimacy Category FEHD LOW MODERATE/HIGH MODERATE Influential • Limited interests in • Authority to enforce • Well recognised (PL) street performance relevant laws by responsibilities activities which are warning or issuing • Staff is generally well outside their core summons against street informed of the relevant priorities (food safety performers; May seize laws and regulations and hygiene) the goods those engaged regarding to street • No enforcement against in illegal hawking management street performers unless • Regular patrols of • Enforcement actions they are engaged in Central footbridges and sometimes perceived illegal hawking or street TST waterfront as confusing, arbitrary obstruction or unfair by street performers (esp. visual artists) LCSD HIGH MODERATE MODERATE Dominant • Strong interest in • Has authority enforce • Relatively well- (PIL) balancing interests of Pleasure Grounds recognised various public space Regulation and Civic responsibilities in users in LCSD-managed Centres Regulation by managing performers on parks and outdoor areas issuing summons or their premises of civic centres removing offenders from • Some stakeholders see • Strong interest in the space LCSD rules as excessively controlling or excluding • Can create discretionary restrictive street performance house rules at Cultural behaviour that attracts Centre complaints on LCSD • Fairly well-resourced premises – security staff & public space managers present during hours of operation in major public spaces • Mixed success in controlling street performance activity – Cultural Centre much more effectively controlled than Tuen Mun Park • Authority is only applicable to LCSD property; street performers take advantage of boundary lines on complex waterfront spaces TD MODERATE/HIGH MODERATE-LOW MODERATE-LOW Marginal (I) (Walkability) • Sees unresolved street • Enough influence within • Limited legitimacy management issues as Government force to set in this area – efforts a significant cause of up an interdepartmental in advocating for community objection policy steering group at pedestrian improvement to its pedestrianisation the senior management schemes face major projects and hence level objections from some an obstacle to • No legal authority residents and DCs for the implementing its to directly manage fear of another Mong walkability objectives street activities in Kok • Considers street pedestrianised precincts performance activities as • Suggests need for potential place-making Government to set tool (in promoting up a dedicated office walkability and livability) to coordinate street management issues including street performance

61 APpendix 2

Stakeholders Interests Power Legitimacy Category MTRC LOW-MODERATE HIGH MODERATE-HIGH Influential • Supporting • Well-resourced • Responsibilities well (PL) performances within financially and in recognised MTR stations could manpower • Have discretion to help meet their CSR • Resourceful in run their own busking objectives and boost supporting events to schemes the reputation of the boosting company image • Established partnerships company • Able to form with NGOs places their • Currently runs their own partnerships with NGOs CSR efforts in a good busking programmes position at Hong Kong Station but would appreciate if Government set up a working group or office to provide a one-stop service for street performer license applications • However, maintaining the smooth and operation of the MTR system and complying with safety regulations is a higher priority. This limits their ability or interest to allow performers to use other locations NGO (HKFYG) LOW-MODERATE MODERATE-HIGH HIGH Influential • Some interest in • Well established • Well respected and (PL) promoting cultural and status enables them to trusted rights and recreational activities for collaborate with the responsibilities target groups (youth, in private sector. • Non-profits are generally this case) • Socially sustained viewed as good actors by • However, supporting relations with youth other stakeholders street performance is groups including young only one of many ways street performers to achieve their goals

DCs MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE Dominant • Despite some interest • Socially and politically • Generally respected (PIL) in promoting or well connected as legitimate suppressing street • Some lobbying power representatives of the performance activities, and ability to ask for public to communicate the priority remains services & assistance opinions upwards to the lowers than some other from Government Government more pressing issues on departments at district • However, legitimacy their agenda level suffered to some extent • Street performance only • Little formal decision or due to low election becomes a priority if it policymaking authority turnout in past years is the cause of a large within district • Relatively low public volume of complaints confidence in the ability of DCs to make an impact due to limited formal authority

62 Appendix 3

Summaries of selected overseas examples of street performance policies

Licensing approaches: Taipei, Singapore and Melbourne TAIPEI License Yes. Under the “Provisions for the Licensing of Arts Activities by Street Artists in Taipei City”, street required? performers must obtain a license to engage in any “live arts activity” in any public space. Three categories of street performers are recognised: a. performing arts: live performance of music, theatre, acrobatics, puppetry, etc.; b. visual arts: on-site creation of images, portraits, photos, videos, pavement art etc.; c. and creative arts: on-site creation of handicrafts for sale. Cost The initial application costs NT$5,000 (approx. HK$143) for individuals and NT$1,000 (approx. HK$264) for groups, while renewals cost NT$200 (approx. HK$53) for both individuals and groups.288 (Groups can have a maximum of 10 members). Validity 2 years. Once a license is acquired, performers do not have to re-audition. Licenses are renewed by period submitting evidence, i.e. performance logs, that they have used their license for the intended purpose. Auditions Yes. Auditions are judged by a panel of judges composed of government officials, arts experts and street required? performers’ representatives. The public may watch the auditions and vote whether they like or dislike each performer. Receiving more than 10% of “dislikes” is grounds for rejection.289 Auditions are held once a year in May, and each performer is given two minutes to perform.290 Those who are rejected may submit one request for appeal. The pass rate is below 15%. Noise As a condition of their licenses, performers should not produce “excessive volume affecting the limits surrounding environment” or refuse to cooperate when asked to turn the volume down. No objective decibel level is specified. Some individual locations have objective decibel limits.291 Spatial Street performers may only perform at the 66 designated pitches by the Department of Cultural Affairs. rules They must obtain permission from the venue manager (either government agencies or private managers) before using the space. License conditions impose rules on how much space street performers may take up and how far they must stand from one another. - “Performing Arts” buskers must stand at least 4 metres distant from each other, which may be increased to 6 metres at the discretion of public space managing bodies. - “Visual arts” and “creative arts” buskers may occupy a space of 1m by 2m. The amount of space that “environmental artists”, i.e. pavement chalk artists, may occupy is granted at the discretion of venue managers. Time - Performers may normally perform between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10 p.m., although some specific limits pitches may have different time limits. - There are no general regulations governing the duration of performances, although there may be location-specific rules. Other - Performers have to display their licenses prominently. rules - Performers may not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic, block the entrances of buildings, disabled access routes, or firefighting equipment. They must leave at least 3m of space for pedestrian passage. - Street performers are required to clean up after themselves and must compensate any damage incurred. - Religious and political content are not permitted. - Street performers must not engage in “behaviour that has a major impact on the rights and interests of consumers, or that damages or adversely impacts the overall image of street artists”. - Performers have to abide by all laws and any regulations specific to performance locations. Penalties - Those performing without permission in a roadway can be ordered to stop immediately and fined between NT$1,200 and 2,400 (approx. HK$318-635) under the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (national legislation). Property damage, endangerment of public safety, and noise nuisance can also be penalised under the Social Order and Maintenance Act, and the Noise Control Act, respectively. - License conditions are enforced using demerit points. 1 to 5 points may be deducted if performers are found in breach of rules listed in the “Inspection Criteria for Street Performances in Taipei City”.292 If a license holder accumulates nine demerits, their license will be revoked, and they may not reapply for another for 12 months. - The Government can temporarily suspend permission to perform in public spaces or in any events organised by the Taipei City Government if a performer breaches the rules twice or is involved in a “major violation”. - The Department of Cultural Affairs also reserves the right to revoke licenses if they are found to have been obtained under false pretences (i.e. misrepresenting themselves during audition), if the performer does anything that “adversely impacts the image of street performers to a substantial degree”, or for “failure to genuinely undertake street performance without presenting a legitimate reason”. Benefits The Department of Cultural Affairs provides some support293 to street performers by: for - Promoting street performance in city marketing materials perform- - Inviting street artists to perform at civic events ers - Providing information and news updates - Engaging street performers (i.e. through surveys) to address public space management issues 63 APpendix 3

SINGAPORE294 License Yes. Licensed street performance is permitted under an exemption to the Public Entertainments Act, required? which regulates public entertainments in all venues in Singapore. There are three recognised types of street performances: Musical, Movement/Street Theatre, and Visual Arts. Cost Free Validity Licenses are valid for 2 years, after which performers are required to re-audition. period Auditions Yes. To obtain a license, performers are required to audition before a panel assembled by the National required? Arts Council, either individually or as a group. Auditions are held 4 times a year and each performer is given about 5 minutes. The pass rate is around 80-85%. Performers may not appeal the NAC’s decisions. Performers are also required to attend a briefing session at which the terms and conditions of the license are explained. Noise Performers should not exceed 65 dBA. restrictions Only battery-powered amplifiers are allowed. Generator or mains powered amplifiers are not allowed. Spatial There are 112 designated pitches throughout Singapore. Performers may only perform at the pitches restrictions specified on their license. Performers can choose 8 locations on their application forms, of which they will be assigned 5. License holders are allowed to apply once to change pitches within the validity period. Singapore’s authorities do not manage time slots for the designated pitches but expect performers to work out pitch sharing arrangements among themselves. Performers are advised to keep a reasonable distance from each other. Performers may not cause obstruction to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Time - Performers may perform between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. unless otherwise stated. limits - There are no rules governing the duration of performances. Other rules Performers may not display price tags on their artwork, sell any merchandise, or actively solicit donations There are a number of restrictions on the content of performances. Performances cannot be: - Offensive or obscene - Derogatory of defamatory to any third party - Bring the National Arts Council into disrepute - Advocate for lifestyles “seen as objectionable by the general public” - Denigrate any persons on the basis of race or religion or create religious or racial conflict - Undermine the authority of the Government or public institutions, or threaten the nation’s security and stability - Have any political or religious agenda, “save in accordance with the law”. Penalties - Licenses may be revoked by the NAC if performers are found in breach of license conditions. - Unlicensed performers may be fined SG$10,000 (approx. HK$56,828) under the Public Entertainments Act. Benefits The NAC is engaged in the following: for - Promotion in city marketing materials performers - Negotiating with venue managers (i.e. shopping mall owners) to open up more pitches - Developing an app to help performers and audiences track popular busking pitches - Engagement with street performers and cooperating with them to set up a Busker’s Association

64 MELBOURNE295 License Yes. Under the Activities Local Law, street performers are required to obtain a license. There are three required? types of license available. a) General area busking permit. For general performers who do not use dangerous equipment (e.g. fire) or require audience participation. Applies to most locations except premium sites, circle act pitches, and restricted areas. b) Pavement art busking permit: For to visual artists drawing on the pavement with chalk or on other surfaces like canvas or paper. c) Circle act busking permit: For performances that require audiences to stop for longer periods or participate, i.e. magic shows. May involve dangerous materials, e.g. fire. Can only take place at designated pitches. Requires public liability insurance. d) Premium busking permit: Intended for professional-level buskers to perform at high-traffic locations such as Bourke Street Mall. Cost For Melbourne residents, premium permits cost AU$70 (approx. HK$395), and other types cost AU$30 (approx. HK$169). Temporary permits for visiting performers cost AU$50 (approx. HK$282) for premium permits and AU$25 (approx. HK$141) for other types. An additional AU$100 (approx. HK$565) must be paid by those seeking to sell CDs, DVDs, or original artwork produced while busking. Validity Permits are valid for 12 months. Temporary permits are valid for 3 months. period Auditions Only for premium permits. Since April 2019, auditions have been required for performers seeking required? permits for premium locations.296 Other performers have to undergo a Safety and Amenity Review, which reviews factors like safety of equipment set-up, awareness of pedestrian access, suitability of the performance for proposed performance sites, presentation and neatness, sound management, and whether the performance meets the official definition of busking. Performers using dangerous materials must meet fire safety standards undergo a safety review conducted by an experienced peer. Noise limits There are set decibel limits for general and circle act performers. Compliance officers use handheld decibel meters or mobile phone apps to measure volume levels. In general, the decibel limits are: 1 metre sound level 81 dB LAeq 1 min 3 metre sound level 72 dB LAeq 1 min 6 metre sound level 66 dB LAeq 1 min297 A somewhat higher decibel limit is applied to the Bourke Street Mall premium sites. Amplifiers Battery-powered amplifiers are generally allowed between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. on Sundays to Thursdays and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Different hours may apply to selected locations. Generator- and mains-powered amplifiers are not allowed. Spatial Melbourne only has designated pitches for its premium locations and for circle acts. Only premium rules permit holders can use the premium pitches, and circle act permit holders have priority at designated circle pitches. Other street performers can perform anywhere, except in restricted areas. Residential zones and certain other locations are designated as no-go zones for street performers, while other select locations are designated as non-amplification busking zones. In the latter areas, performers may perform acoustically. Designated pitches and restricted areas are shown on a map available on Melbourne City Council’s website.298 Time limits In most locations, street performances can take place from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. from Sunday to Thursday and 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays, and the eve of public holidays. Street performers are required to move regularly to avoid disturbing nearby building occupants for too long. General performers can stay in one place for 2 hours, after which they have to move to a different location at least 50m away, and not perform in the same place more than once a day. Circle performers are allowed to stay in one location for 1 hour, and premium performers are only allowed to occupy a pitch for 30 minutes, with a 30-minute break. Visual artists can stay in place for up to 8 hours. Other rules - No live animal acts - No hawking, advertising or touting. - Performers engaging in activities like face painting, portraiture or selling handicrafts must apply for a street vendor’s license or a street entertainment license. - No charging for photographs while dressed in cosplay - No political rallying or religious preaching. Penalties Under the Activities Local Law of 2019, performers can be issued spot fines of AU$826.10 (5 penalty units) (approx. HK$4,666) for performing without a permit, AU$164.22 (1 penalty unit) (approx. HK$ 928) for breaching their permit conditions, and AU$1,652.20 (10 penalty units) (approx. HK$ 9,332) for failing to comply with a “notice to comply”.299 If prosecuted in court (as opposed to being fined on the spot), busking without a permit could be punishable by a maximum penalty of AU$3,304.40 (approx. HK$18,662). Benefits - Melbourne’s authorities regard street performance as part of its cultural capital and promote it in city for branding performers - Responsibility for the safety assessments has been delegated to a street performer’s association (ACAPTA), giving street performers direct participation in regulation. - Street performers are invited to participate in decision-making processes. - The city employs a busking coordinator responsible for supporting the busking community.

65 APpendix 3

Spatial regulation approaches: New York City, Prague NEW YORK CITY License There is no general licensing scheme for street performance in New York City (NYC) as this would be required? unconstitutional on freedom of expression grounds in the United States. NYC does require performers to purchase one-off permits for selected locations, including the Staten Island Ferry Terminals, public parks, and for using amplification. The NYC Mass Transit Authority (MTA) runs “Music Under New York”, a voluntary scheme giving approved performers access to premium pitches in the New York subway system. However, participation in the scheme is not required to perform in subway stations. Auditions Auditions are only required to participate in the voluntary MUNY scheme. required? Noise In subway system, performers must not play during station announcements or use amplifiers on subway restrictions platforms. There is a decibel limit of: - 85 dBA at a distance of 5 feet (1.5m), or - 70 dBA at two feet (0.6m) from a station booth.300 Outside of the subway system, the New York Code – Regulation of Sound Devices or Apparatus prohibits the use of amplifiers: - Between 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. anywhere - Between 8 p.m. or sunset, whichever is later, and 9 a.m. within 50 feet of a residential building on weekdays. - Between 8 p.m. or sunset, whichever is later, and 10 a.m. within 50 feet of a residential building on weekends and public holidays.301 More generally, the Noise Code prohibits the use of any “sound reproduction devices” (including musical instruments) “in such a manner as to create unreasonable noise.” Additionally, “Personal audio devices”, i.e. stereo systems, should be played on “any public right of way” so as to be “plainly audible” at a distance of 25 feet.302 Spatial In 2016, the New York City Council empowered the Department of Transportation (DoT) to designate restrictions pedestrian plazas and to implement activity zoning within them. To manage conflicts between pedestrians, street performers and hawkers in Times Square, the DoT established three types of micro- zones: - Activity Zones – green boxes painted on the ground where street performers and hawkers are required to stay - Civic Zones – Areas designated for special events - Flow Zones – Areas designated for pedestrian circulation. Time There are no regulations pertaining specifically to the hours when street performers may perform or the restrictions duration of their performances. There are time restrictions on the use of amplifiers (see above) Penalties Times Square: US$500 (approx. HK$3,875) fine for failing to comply with pedestrian plaza rules regarding designated activity zones etc.303 Unauthorised use of amplification: US$100 fine (approx. HK$775) or 30 days’ imprisonment for using amplification without a permit or doing so outside of permitted hours, as well as civil penalties to the police commissioner or the commissioner of environmental protection of US$50 (approx. HK$388) for the first violation, US$500 for the second (approx. HK$3,875), US$750 (approx. HK$5,813) for the third and subsequent violation. Persistent violators who commit four or more violations within six months will have to pay a civil penalty of US$1,000 for each violation (approx. HK$7,750). 304 Unreasonable noise from a sound reproduction device: Minimum/maximum penalties of US$440/1,750 (approx. HK$3,410/13,563) for the first offence, US$880/3,500 (approx. HK$6,820/27,126) for the second offence, and US$1,320/5,250 (approx. HK$10,230/40689) for the third offence.305

Noisy performances in subway stations: US$25 (approx. HK$194) for exceeding decibel limits in subway stations or performing or using an amplifier in a prohibited area.306

Unauthorised performances in parks: US$250 (approx. HK$1,938) fine increased to US$500 (approx. HK$3,875) if it “significantly interferes with ordinary park use”.307 Benefits In general, New York City treats street performance as a nuisance issue and does not provide overall for street cultural or promotional support to street performers, aside from the voluntary MUNY scheme. performers 308 MUNY is a voluntary audition scheme run by the MTA the New York Subway system which grants approved performers priority access to high foot traffic pitches and promotional support. MUNY has been criticised for giving the public the impression that participation is mandatory in order to discourage non-approved performers.309

66 PRAGUE310 License No. required? Noise There is a ban on amplifiers and musical instruments deemed loud, high-pitched, or ethnic (non- restrictions European) throughout the historic city centre. In 2019 some musical instruments like oboes, piccolos and saxophones were re-legalised. There is no decibel limit. Spatial - “Acoustic busking”, i.e. any performance involving the production of sound, is not allowed in certain restrictions streets. - Specified city squares as well as children’s playgrounds, places of worship during religious services, schools on weekdays, health care facilities, and boarding platforms for public transport are off-limits to any kind of street performance - Individual performers can take up 2 m2 of space, and groups can occupy 12 m2. Street performers cannot obstruct building entrances. Time - Street performance is allowed between the hours of 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. restrictions - Acoustic performances are alternately allowed on the left and right bank of the Vltava river by the hour; i.e. they may play on the left bank during odd numbered hours (9-10 a.m., 11 a.m.-12 p.m., 1-2 p.m. etc.) and on the right bank during even numbered hours (10-11 a.m., 12-1 p.m., 2-3 p.m. etc.) Other rules Since 2019: - No costumed characters or living statues as these do not meet the official definition of “artistic performance”. - No soap bubbles, spray painting, or other performances that may produce pollutants, residues or odours. Penalties Breaking any of the above regulations is punishable by maximum penalty of Kč100,000 (approx. HK$34,800), along with a “prohibition of stay” (i.e. being banned from a certain location for a period of time). Benefits - The city defines street performance as a problem of public order. for street - In 2012, the City Council liberalised restrictions on busking in the city centre after engagement with a performers street performance advocacy group. However, since 2016, residents’ complaints have taken political priority.

67 APpendix 3

Voluntary approaches: Bath BATH311 License No. Bath operates under a voluntary code of conduct for street performers, the “The Guide to Busking required? and Street Performance in Bath” Auditions No. required? Noise Street performers are advised that noise from instruments or performers “should not be above street guidelines ambient noise”. Amplifiers The guidelines advise that “loud inconsiderate amplification is not welcome”. Spatial The guidelines advise performers to be mindful of street traders and other public space users, and to rules avoid setting up in front of shop windows, doorways and fire exits without permission from the building owner. There are specific guidelines about performing near Bath Abbey, a site of religious importance. There is a traffic light system outside the Abbey which is red during religious services and green when there are none in progress. Performers are advised not to perform nearby when the red light is on. Time Street performers are advised to stay for a maximum of one hour at each pitch. The guidelines encourage limits pitch swapping in order to prevent spaces from being dominated by certain people in the long term. Performance times in Bath City Centre are between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. Other rules As the Code of Conduct is voluntary, there are no specific penalties for breaking it. However, it guides law enforcement priorities under existing legislation. Members of the public are advised to speak to performers directly if they feel that they are not following the code. If attempts at negotiation are unsuccessful, members of the public are advised to call the Council. Enforcement officers will make a judgement as to whether the performance is unreasonable and issue a verbal warning. If ignored, performers may be served with a written warning. If this is also ignored, performers may be served a Community Protection Notice under the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. Community Protection Notices are civil notices used to prohibit individuals from engaging in certain behaviour or entering certain areas. Benefits - Performers are advised to clean up after themselves if using fire or other chemicals during for street performances. performers - Performers are advised not to actively solicit money although they can passively receive donations. - Performers may not sell CDs or merchandise without a street trading permit. - Performers are asked to avoid being repetitive - Performers are advised to be courteous to members of the public if there is a complaint or conflict. - Code of Conduct was developed in collaboration with street performers and other stakeholders - Voluntary code avoids use of formal regulations

68 Mixed approaches: London (boroughs of Camden, Kensington & Chelsea, and Westminster) LONDON Note on London is made up of 32 boroughs, each of which is responsible for setting its own policy on street admini- performance. There are two main mechanisms that boroughs employ to regulate street performance: strative structure - Under the London Local Authorities Act (2000), boroughs are authorised to designate certain streets as “license streets” and to require licenses to perform on them. - The Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) also authorises local authorities to prohibit or require any activities in a designated area in order to prevent antisocial behaviour. This enables them to impose specific rules on street performance in specific locations regarding time, volume, type of performance, etc.

The Greater London Authority provided some guidance and support Busk in London scheme, launched in 2015. This self-financing programme was intended to mediate between stakeholders and through consultation developed a voluntary code of conduct “the Busker’s Code” to encourage self-regulation and serve as guidance to local councils.312 Busk in London initially provided an online map showing where major pitches and area-specific busking schemes were located, but this was discontinued when it inadvertently encouraged overcrowding of popular unregulated pitches.313 Over time the emphasis of the programme has shifted away from providing local guidance and towards linking performers with private venues.314 License Currently, three boroughs Camden, Hillingdon and Westminster have licensing schemes for street required? performers. The City of London (the financial district) requires licenses to collect money on the street, rather than for performing. Auditions None of the council-run licensing schemes require auditions. However, auditions are required by the required? busking scheme run by Transport for London (TFL). Privately-managed venues such as the Southbank Centre and Covent Garden also have audition schemes. Spatial The boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham currently have PSPOs placing rules restrictions and requirements on street performance in geographically defined areas. Time Generally speaking, operating amplifiers after 9 p.m. may be prosecuted under the Control of Pollution restrictions Act (1974). The voluntary Busker’s Code advises performers to move pitches around once an hour at popular pitches, and to avoid playing the same music in the same location for long periods. Boroughs with licensing schemes or PSPOs have more specific rules regarding the times of day when performers may play and how long they are allowed to occupy a pitch. Other rules Obstructing the street can be prosecuted under the Highways Act (1980). Performers cannot sell items including CDs without a street trading license. Performers who cause persistent nuisances may be served a Community Protection Notice under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014), a type of restraining order requiring them to cease the behaviour. Penalties Performing without a license in a licensed area can be penalised by a fine of £1,000 (approx. HK$9,978) and the seizure of the performer’s equipment. Violating a noise abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act carries the same penalty. Violating a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) can be penalised by a spot fine of £100 (approx. HK$998). Benefits As London does not have a unified street performance policy, there are few benefits for street for street performers. However, those participating in the Busk in London scheme are promoted and obtain access performers to opportunities to perform at private venues.

69 APpendix 3

CAMDEN, LONDON Scheme Licensing type Auditions No. Applications are evaluated on the basis of the applicant’s past behaviour, sufficient space for required? performance at the proposed location without causing undue inconvenience or safety risk to pedestrians, and likelihood of nuisance to nearby building occupants Cost Variable - £19 (approx. HK$190) - standard license - £47 (approx. HK$469) - performances with amplifiers, drums, wind instruments, dangerous materials, groups of 3 or more, before 10 a.m. or after 9 p.m. - No license required – non-musical, unamplified performances e.g. magic shows, puppet shows etc. Validity 2 years period License - Licenses must be displayed while performing conditions - Performers should not cause obstructions, or be located in front of pedestrian crossings, entrances to buildings, or public transport stops - Performers should not perform at a volume that causes a public nuisance or annoyance to any business or resident - Performers should not act in a way that causes offence to a member of the public - Performers move locations once an hour - Performers should not locate themselves within 50m of another performer Penalties Busking without a license, violating license conditions, or making statements on license applications are punishable by a fine of up to £1,000 (approx. HK$9,978).

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA, LONDON Scheme PSPO type Major tourist locations in the borough have been designated as “purple zones” and “red zones”. In purple zones, street performers are required to follow a code of conduct: - Performers should move to a new location at least 100m away every 45 minutes, and not occupy the same location more than once a day. - Performances should take place only between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. - Performers should not use any amplifiers - Performances should not be at an unreasonable volume, defined as hindering conversation at a distance of 10m - Performers should have a full and varied repertoire to avoid being repetitive - Performers must carry public liability indemnity insurance of up to £2 million (approx. HK$20 million) - Performers should not obstruct the road or pavement - Performers may not sell any CDs or other merchandise without permission from the Council - Performers should follow all reasonable instructions from authorised Council officers or the police. In red zones, which have been identified as the “areas of highest detrimental impact”, only the following types of performance are allowed, excluding the use of any musical or percussive devices or instruments. - Mime, living statues etc. - Clowning - Theatrical or other spoken word performances (excluding singing) - Magic tricks - Juggling (excluding dangerous materials) Penalties Violation of PSPOs are punishable by fixed penalty fines of £100 (approx.HK$998).

70 WESTMINSTER, LONDON315 Scheme Combination of licensing, self-regulation and voluntary measures type Licensing Leicester Square, Chinatown, Piccadilly Circus and Oxford Street. Trafalgar Square will not require a of selected license. locations - There will be a fixed number of pitches at each location to prevent them from becoming overcrowded. - No audition is required - Applications are free - Applicants will be approved on the basis of whether the size and type of performance is likely to cause a nuisance at the proposed location, and whether the performer is “fit and proper” to perform based on previous record. - Performers are required to have public liability insurance Self- Self-regulation through SPAs regulation - Performers are strongly encouraged to join the Covent Garden Street Performer Association and the Westminster Street Performer Association in order to perform in Covent Garden, Trafalgar Square and Leicester Square (the latter also requires a license). Joining the Covent Garden SPA involves an audition. SPA members monitor each other to prevent performers from causing nuisances and manage pitch allocation/scheduling systems within their areas. Voluntary While the Code of Conduct is voluntary in the sense that it is not legally binding, performers who fail to code of follow it may have their license applications denied. The Code of Conduct advises performers to: conduct - Hold public liability insurance - Adhere to safety standards – ensure that people do not trip over equipment, avoid using fire or sharp objects, no unlicensed animals - Perform between the hours of 10 a.m. and 9 p.m. - Avoid causing a nuisance – keep volume at “just above ambient noise level”, no external power sources on amplifiers, avoid repetitive performances, maintain a distance of 50 feet (15 m) from other performers, perform for no more than 40 minutes with a 20-minute break before the next performer, abide by queueing systems established by other street performers - Avoid causing obstructions – do not block building entrances, control audiences to prevent them from blocking the pavement - Cooperate with enforcement officers and follow instructions if told to adjust the performance or to move to another location - Do not sell merchandise without a street trading license - Communicate with local residents and businesses, participate in Westminster Council’s online Busking Street Entertainment and Forum.

71 ENDNOTES

1. Carmona, M., Malgalhaes, d., C., & Hammond, L. (2008). 17. Lee, S., “Trading in nostalgia”, South China Morning Post, Public Space: The Management Dimension. Abingdon: 1 October 2002, https://www.scmp.com/article/393036/ Routledge. trading-nostalgia (accessed 10 April 2020). There was a short-lived attempt to revive it as a tourist attraction in 2003, 2. Simpson, P. (2011), “Street Performance and the but Sheung Wan Gala Point Investments Ltd., the company City: Public Space, Sociality and Intervening in the that was awarded the tender to operate it, was wound up in Everyday”, Space and Culture, 14(4)415-430, https://doi. 2008. org/10.1177/1206331211412270, (accessed 10 April 2020). 18. Hong Kong Heritage Museum, “Hong Kong’s Popular 3. Ibid. Entertainment”, 31 December 2019, Leisure and 4. Ibid. Cultural Services Department, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.heritagemuseum.gov.hk/ 5. Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 288., Section 4, https:// documents/2199315/2199693/Entertainment_E.pdf, www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap228 (accessed 9 June 2020). (accessed 10 April 2020). 6. Doumpa, V. and Broad, N., “Buskers as an ingredient of 19. Ibid. successful urban places”, paper presented at Future Places Conference, Buenos Aires, 3 September 2014. 20. Lau, Y. W. (2002), A history of the Municipal Councils of Hong Kong: 1883-1999: from the Sanitary Board to the 7. Thrift, N., Intensities of Feeling: Towards a Spatial Politics of Urban Council and the Regional Council, Hong Kong: Leisure Affect.Geografiska Annaler: May 2004, Series B(86), 57-78. and Cultural Services Department, HKSAR Government. 8. Simpson, P. (2011), “Street Performance and the 21. Cheung, K. “From buskers to off-key karaoke singers: The City: Public Space, Sociality and Intervening in the public space debate at the heart of Mong Kok’s pedestrian Everyday”, Space and Culture, 14(4)415-430, https://doi. zone”, Hong Kong Free Press, 14 January 2018, https://www. org/10.1177/1206331211412270, (accessed 10 April 2020). hongkongfp.com/2018/01/14/buskers-off-key-karaoke- 9. Carmona, M., Malgalhaes, d., C., & Hammond, L. (2008). singers-public-space-debate-heart-mong-koks-pedestrian- Public Space: The Management Dimension. Abingdon: zone/ (accessed 30 April 2019). Routledge. 22. Lai, C. and Da Roza, A. “Managing Vibrant Streets,” April 10. Development Bureau, “Planning for a Liveable High- 2018, Civic Exchange, https://civic-exchange.org/report/ density City”, Hong Kong 2030+ Towards a Planning Vision managing-vibrant-streets (accessed 11 April 2020). and Strategy Transcending 2030, Hong Kong: HKSAR 23. Communications and Public Relations Office, Chinese Government, https://www.hk2030plus.hk/building1.htm# University of Hong Kong (2015). “First-ever Census of Hong (accessed 31 April 2019). Kong Street Performers: Existing policy fails to empower full- 11. Lai, C. and Da Roza, A. “Managing Vibrant Streets,” April time performers may cause overcrowding in some districts”, 2018, Civic Exchange, https://civic-exchange.org/report/ press release, 17 December 2015, https://www.cpr.cuhk. managing-vibrant-streets (accessed 11 April 2020). edu.hk/en/press_detail.php?id=2153&t=first-ever-census- of-hong-kong-street-performers-existing-policy-fails-to- 12. Information Services Department, “LCQ3: Regulation empower-full-time-performers-may-cause-overcrowding-in- and promotion of street performances”, press release, 7 some-districts (accessed 16 July 2020). November 2018, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https:// www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201811/07/P2018110700635. 24. Ibid. htm, (accessed 10 April 2020). 25. Ibid. 13. Legislative Council Secretariat, “Background brief prepared 26. Ibid. by the Legislative Council Secretariat for the meeting on 12 May 2014: Government’s Policy and Measures on Street 27. The Chief Executive’s Office, “The 1999 Policy Address”, Performance”, Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs, https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/pa99/chinese/part5-1c. 12 May 2014, LC Paper No. CB(2)1442/13-14(08), Hong htm#p103, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, (accessed on 8 Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.legco.gov.hk/ April 2020). yr13-14/english/panels/ha/papers/ha0512cb2-1442-8-e.pdf 28. The Transport Department, “Pedestrianisation in Mong Kok (accessed 16 April 2020). to be implemented this Sunday”, https://www.info.gov.hk/ 14. Lai, C. and Da Roza, A. “Managing Vibrant Streets,” April gia/general/200008/11/0811168.htm, press release, 11 2018, Civic Exchange, https://civic-exchange.org/report/ August 2000, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, (accessed on managing-vibrant-streets (accessed 11 April 2020). Also 8 April 2020). see interview with Ng, Y. Y. June, Walkability Task Force, 29. Council (2012-2015), “Minutes of Transport Department, 19 February 2020. the 11th Meeting of Yau Tsim Mong District Council (2012- 15. Hong Kong Heritage Museum, “Hong Kong’s Popular 2015)”, 20 June 2013, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, Entertainment”, 31 December 2019, Leisure and https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/ytm/doc/2012_2015/ Cultural Services Department, Hong Kong: HKSAR en/dc_meetings_minutes/DC_Minutes_11th_20.6.2013_E. Government, https://www.heritagemuseum.gov.hk/ pdf, Hong (accessed on 14 April, 2020). documents/2199315/2199693/Entertainment_E.pdf, 30. Home Affairs Department, “LCQ10: Street performance (accessed 10 April 2020). activities”, press release, 13 November 2013, Hong 16. Antiquities and Monuments Office, “Central & Western Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/ Heritage Trail”, 2 September 2019, Hong Kong: HKSAR general/201311/13/P201311130364.htm, (accessed on 8 Government, https://www.amo.gov.hk/en/trails_ April, 2020). sheungwan1.php?tid=30, (accessed 9 April 2020).

72 31. Yau Tsim Mong District Council (2012-2015), “Minutes of 43. Zhang, K., “Buskers from Mong Kok driven out of Tsim Sha the 9th Meeting of Traffic and Transport Committee, 18 Tsui by angry Hong Kong protesters”, South China Morning July 2013, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www. Post, 12 August 2018, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong- districtcouncils.gov.hk/ytm/doc/2012_2015/en/committee_ kong/community/article/2159307/buskers-moved-mong- meetings_minutes/TTC/TTC_Minutes_9th_18.7.2013_E. kok-driven-out-tsim-sha-tsui-angry-hong (accessed 29 June pdf, accessed on 14 April 2020). 2020). 32. The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative 44. Yan Yan, street performer, interview with authors, 16 March Region Court of First Instance, “Lui Yuet Tin vs Commissioner 2020. for Transport HKCAL 42/2014”, 30 April 2018, Hong 45. Ibid. Kong: HKSAR Government, https://legalref.judiciary. hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame. 46. Information Services Department, “LCQ3: Amateur Chinese jsp?DIS=114910&QS=%2B&TP=JU, (accessed on 14 April opera performances at Tuen Mun Park”, press release, 14 2020). June 2006, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, info.gov.hk/gia/ general/200606/14/P200606140174.htm (accessed 23 April 33. Information Services Department, “LCQ8: Management of 2020). the Mong Kok Pedestrian Precinct”, Press Release, 24 May 2017, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.info.gov. 47. Tuen Mun District Council, “Tuen Mun District Council hk/gia/general/201705/24/P2017052400537.htm (accessed 17th Meeting Minutes”, 8 July 2014, Hong Kong: HKSAR 20 April 2020). Government, https://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/tm/ doc/2012_2015/tc/dc_meetings_minutes/dc_17th_ 34. Yau Tsim Mong District Council (2016-2019), The Pedestrian minutes_20140708.pdf (accessed 23 April 2020). Precinct is Getting Out of Control – Strong Request for the Introduction of Licensing Scheme to Strengthen the 48. Tuen Mun District Council, “Tue Mun District Council 8 July Management Operation, No. 53/2018, 8 May 2018, Hong Meeting Discussion Paper No. 21, 2014: Request for absolute Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.districtcouncils. resolution of excessive noise and nuisances in Tuen Mun gov.hk/ytm/doc/2016_2019/en/dc_meetings_doc/14745/ Park”, 8 July 2014, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https:// YTM_DC_53_2018_TC.pdf (accessed 21 April 2020). www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/tm/doc/2012_2015/common/ dc_meetings_doc/806/dc_2014_021.pdf (accessed on 23 35. Ibid. April 2020). 36. Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, 49. Pang, H-Y., and Kwok, S-M., ““Reclaim Tuen Mun Park”: “Performances are Extremely Noisy. Is Abolishing the Cantonese opera turned Dai Ma Dance, Never-ending noise, Pedestrian Scheme the Only Option”, Yau Tsim Mong and the end of 13-year self-entertainment zones“, District Council Meeting Discussion Paper 52/2018, 7 「光復屯門 13 ”, 9 May 2018, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www. 公園」唱粵曲變大媽艷舞， 噪音無間斷， 年自娛區失效 July 2019, Hong Kong 01, https://bit.ly/2x297uL (accessed on districtcouncils.gov.hk/ytm/doc/2016_2019/en/dc_ 23 April 2020). (Chinese only) meetings_doc/14745/YTM_DC_52_2018_TC.pdf (accessed 20 April 2020). 50. Leisure and Cultural Services Department, “Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs: Amendment of Pleasure 37. Hong Kong Police Force, written communication with Grounds Regulation to step up control of noise nuisance authors, 13 August 2020. in parks managed by Leisure and Cultural Services 38. Ibid. Department”, LC Paper No. CB(2)724/19-20(05), 23 March 2020, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.legco. 39. District Councillor Hung Chiu-wah, Request for Government gov.hk/yr19-20/english/panels/ha/papers/ha20200511cb2- to Enact Legislation for Effective Management of Street 724-5-e.pdf (accessed 2 June 2020). Performance, Yau Tsim Mong District Council Meeting Discussion Paper No. 103/2018, 10 September 2018, Hong 51. Ibid. Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.districtcouncils. 52. Ibid. gov.hk/ytm/doc/2016_2019/en/dc_meetings_doc/14748/ YTM_DC_103_2018_TC.pdf (accessed 21 April 2020). 53. Ng, Y. Y. June, Walkability Task Force, Transport Department, interview with authors, 19 February 2020. 40. Chan, S-T., and Leung, W-M., “Nearly hundreds of netizens turn up at the Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront to come head to 54. Lee, Jay, street performer, interview with authors, 8 February head with Dai Ma and their fans in response to ‘Reclaim TST’ 2020. Mong Kok Roman, street performer, interview with movement”, 「近百網民響應光復尖沙咀碼頭號召 現身與 authors, 16 March 2020. 『 大 媽 』及 粉 絲 對 罵 」，Hong Kong 01, 11 August 2018, https://bit.ly/3eCcVnp (accessed 21 April 2020). (Chinese 55. Wong, B., “Hong Kong’s Times Square obtains court only) order to permanently ban street performances at its open piazza”, South China Morning Post¸ 19 March 2020, 41. Hong Kong Police Force, written communication with https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/ authors, 13 August 2020. article/3075939/hong-kongs-times-square-obtains-court- order (accessed 22 June 2020). 42. “Forcibly occupying [performance] space”, known as ba dei poon in Cantonese, is a common behaviour often associated 56. Hong Kong Police Force, Guidance Note on Musical with groups of street performers of the older generation. Instrument Permit Application, 2015, Hong Kong: HKSAR This practice is an outgrowth of the unspoken “first come, Government, https://www.police.gov.hk/info/doc/licensing/ first served” practice among street performers for claiming general/en/gn_mip_en.pdf (accessed 5 May 2020). pitches. Ba dei poon involves arriving, placing belongings, or sending a proxy to claim a space hours in advance of the start of the performance in order to deter rival performers.

73 ENDNOTES

57. Cheung, K., “Hong Kongers free to engage in cultural 75. State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and activities, says judge who overturned busker’s guilty Environment (2005), Effective engagement: building verdict”, Hong Kong Free Press, 16 September 2015, https:// relationships with community and other stakeholders - Book hongkongfp.com/2015/09/16/hongkongers-free-to-engage- 2 the engagement planning workbook, Melbourne: Victorian in-cultural-activities-says-judge-who-overturned-buskers- Government Department of Sustainability and Environment. guilty-verdict/ (accessed 5 May 2020). 76. Siu, P., “Mong Kok street performers band together to call 58. Ibid. for licensing system in Hong Kong to revive lost culture”, South China Morning Post, 30 July 2018, https://www. 59. Hong Kong Police Force, communication with author, 23 scmp.com/news/hong-kong/community/article/2157428/ January 2018. mong-kok-street-performers-band-together-call-licensing 60. Information Services Department, “Background brief (accessed 15 April 2020). Also see Chan, A. “Why licenses prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat for the for buskers in Hong Kong won’t work: think ‘censorship’ meeting on 12 May 2014 – Government’s Policy and cries”, South China Morning Post, https://www.scmp.com/ Measures on Street Performance”, 5 May 2014, Hong comment/letters/article/2149937/why-licenses-buskers- Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.legco.gov.hk/ wont-work-hong-kong-think-censorship-cries (accessed 15 yr13-14/english/panels/ha/papers/ha0512cb2-1442-8-e.pdf April 2020). (accessed 27 April 2020). 77. Lemke, T., “An indigestible meal? Foucault, governmentality 61. Information Services Department, “Open Stage” Pilot and state theory”, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, Scheme debut performance at HK Cultural Centre March 2011, 8(2), pp.43-64. piazza on Saturday”, press release, 29 July 2010, Hong 78. Rayens, M. K., & Hahn, E. J., “Building Consensus Using the Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/ Policy Delphi Method”, Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice, general/201007/29/P201007290233.htm (accessed on 27 November 2000, 1(4), pp. 308-315. April 2020). 79. Linstone, H., & M., T. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques 62. Ibid. and Applications (2002 ed.). Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. 63. Leisure and Cultural Services Department, ”Sha Tin Town Co., Advanced Book Program. Hall Open Stage”, https://www.lcsd.gov.hk/en/stth/common/ 80. A Likert scale is generally a survey scale on which all of the images/openstage/Open_Stage_Application_Form_EN.pdf choices are labelled, e.g. “very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, (accessed 8 May 2020). dissatisfied, very dissatisfied”. This is in contrast to a 64. Fung, Y-W, 探射燈：康文處開放舞台 街頭藝人唔玩, Oriental numerical scale, e.g. 0-5, in which only the ends of the scale Daily, 21 March 2011, https://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/ are labelled. news/20110321/00176_096.html (accessed on 9 April 2020). 81. State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and (Chinese only) Environment (2005), Effective engagement: building 65. Lee, K., “Administration’s response to the letter dated 15 relationships with community and other stakeholders - Book October 2018 from Hon Ma Fung-kwok as set out in LC 2 the engagement planning workbook, Melbourne: Victorian Paper No. CB(2)117/18-19(01)”, 12 November 2018, Home Government Department of Sustainability and Environment. Affairs Bureau, HKSAR Government, https://www.legco.gov. 82. Arrvin, street performer, interview with authors, 11 hk/yr18-19/english/panels/ha/papers/hacb2-242-1-e.pdf February 2020. (accessed 3 June 2020). 83. Mr. C, Mr. L, private developer representatives, interview 66. Ms. Y, Representative of Leisure and Cultural Services with authors, 26 February 2020. Department Cultural Services Branch, HKSAR Government, interview with authors, 13 March 2020. 84. Ms. A, a representative of a business chamber, interview with authors, 23 January 2020. 67. Ibid. 85. Ibid. 68. Ibid. 86. Ms. L, a neighbourhood concern group representative, 69. West Kowloon Cultural District, “Guidelines for Street interview with authors, 6 April 2020. Performance Scheme”, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://webmedia.westkowloon.hk/media/_file/ 87. Mr. S, a representative of Ma Fung-kwok, Legislative Council Park/street-performance-guidelines-en-20190619. Member, interview with authors, 2020. pdf?_ga=2.183463398.1586340176.1587979763- 88. Melville, Mary, interview with authors, 20 March 2020. 167605667.1587979763 (accessed on 27 April 2020). 89. Mr. C, Mr. L, private developer representatives, interview 70. Ibid. with authors, 26 February 2020, Ms. A, a representative of a 71. Ibid. business chamber, interview with authors, 23 January 2020, and Developer B, written communication with authors, 29 72. 07 June 擺脫大白象 街頭表演或成西九文化區新出路？, April 2020. 2018, Hong Kong 01, https://bit.ly/3bGGClr (accessed on 27 April 2020). (Chinese only) 90. Lai, C. and Da Roza, A. “Managing Vibrant Streets,” April 2018, Civic Exchange, https://civic-exchange.org/report/ 73. Mr. Kong, street performer, interview with authors, 5 March managing-vibrant-streets (accessed 11 April 2020). Also 2020. Yan-yan, street performer, interview with authors, 16 see interview with Ng, Y. Y. June, Walkability Task Force, March 2020. Transport Department, 19 February 2020. 74. Legislative Council, “Panel on Home Affairs – Minutes of 91. Cheng Lai-king, Central & Western District Councillor, Meeting”, 13 January 2012, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, interview with authors, 4 February 2020. https://bit.ly/2yPJvBz (accessed on 27 April 2020).

74 92. Mr. C, Mr. L, private developer representatives, interview 120. Lai, C. and Da Roza, A. “Managing Vibrant Streets,” April with authors, 26 February 2020. 2018, Civic Exchange, https://civic-exchange.org/report/ managing-vibrant-streets (accessed 11 April 2020). 93. Environmental Protection Department, “Noise Control Ordinance”, date unknown, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, 121. Pong, Yat-ming, street performer, interview with authors, 12 https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/noise_education/web/ENG_ February 2020. EPD_HTML/m3/ordinance_7.html (accessed 24 June 2020). 122. Melville, Mary, interview with authors, 20 March 2020. 94. Ibid. 123. Ms. A, a representative of a business chamber, interview 95 Hong Kong Police force, communication with authors, 13 with authors, 23 January 2020, August 2020. 124. Wong, Cherry, Central & Western District Councillor, 96. Ibid interview with authors, 12 March 2020. 97. Ibid 125. Mong Kok Roman, street performer, interview with authors, 16 March 2020. 98. Arrvin, street performer, interview with authors, 11 Februray 2020. 126. Ho, Cheng-I, Director of Taiwan Street Arts and Culture Development Association, interview with authors, 20 99. Yu Tak-po, Yau Tsim Mong District Councillor, interview with February 2020. authors, 4 March 2020. 127. Cheng Lai-king, Central & Western District Councillor, 100. Arrvin, street performer, interview with authors, 11 interview with authors, 4 February 2020. February 2020. 128. Ibid. 101. Mong Kok Roman, street performer, interview with authors, 16 March 2020. 129. Mr. Kong, street performer, interview with authors, 5 March 2020. 102. Cheng Lai-king, Central & Western District Councillor, interview with authors, 4 February 2020. 130. Melville, Mary, interview with authors, 20 March 2020. 103. Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228, Section 4A. 131. Ibid. 104. Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Cap. 132, 132. Ms. Y, Representative of the Cultural Services Branch of Section 22. LCSD, interview with authors, 13 March 2020 105. Gustavo and Anna, street performers, interview with 133. Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs,Amendment of authors, 30 January 2020. Pleasure Grounds Regulation to step up control of noise nuisance in parks managed by Leisure and Cultural Services 106. Representatives of Yau Tsim and Mong Kok District Department, CB(2)724/19-20(05), 23 March 2020, Hong Environmental Hygiene Offices, Food and Environmental Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr19- Hygiene Department, interview with authors, 18 March 20/english/panels/ha/papers/ha20200511cb2-724-5-e.pdf 2020. (accessed on 13 May 2020) 107. Lee, Jay, street performer, interview with authors, 8 134. Ah Sun, street performer, interview with authors, 19 March February 2020. 2020. 108. Cheng Lai-king, Central DC member, interview with authors, 135. Mr. Kong, street performer, interview with authors, 5 March 11 February 2020. 2020. 109. Wong, Cherry, Central & Western District Councillor, 136. Communications and Public Relations Office, Chinese interview with authors, 12 March 2020. University of Hong Kong (2015). “First-ever Census of Hong 110. Ms. L, a representative of a community concern group, Kong Street Performers: Existing policy fails to empower full- interview with authors, 2 April 2020. time performers may cause overcrowding in some districts”, press release, 17 December 2015, https://www.cpr.cuhk. 111. Ibid. edu.hk/en/press_detail.php?id=2153&t=first-ever-census- 112. Representative of Developer A, interview with authors, 10 of-hong-kong-street-performers-existing-policy-fails-to- February 2020. empower-full-time-performers-may-cause-overcrowding-in- some-districts (accessed 16 July 2020). 113. Representative of non-profit business chamber, interview with authors, 23 January 2020. 137. Ibid. 114. Melville, Mary, interview with authors, 20 March 2020. 138. Melville, Mary, interview with authors, 20 March 2020. 115. Mong Kok Roman, street performer, interview with authors, 139. Yu Tak-po, Yau Tsim Mong District Councillor, interview with 16 March 2020. Also Heyman, street performer, interview authors, 4 March 2020. with authors, 6 February 2020. 140. Lee, Jay, street performer, interview with authors, 8 116. Arrvin, street performer, interview with authors, 11 February 2020. February 2020. 141. Mong Kok Roman, street performer, interview with authors, 117. Mr. Kong, street performer, interview with authors, 5 March 16 March 2020. 2020. 142. Gustavo, street performer, interview with authors, 30 118. Ah Sun, street performer, interview with authors, 19 March January 2020. 2020. 143. Yan-yan, street performer, interview with authors, 16 March 119. Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228, Section 12A. 2020.

75 ENDNOTES

144. Carmona, M., Malgalhaes, d., C., & Hammond, L. (2008). 160. Berger vs. City of Seattle, United States Court of Appeals Public Space: The Management Dimension. Abingdon: for the Ninth Circuit, 24 June 2009, D.C. No. CV-03- Routledge. 03238-JLR, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ opinions/2009/06/24/05-35752.pdf (accessed 21 April 2020). 145. State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment (2005), Effective engagement: building 161. Ibid. relationships with community and other stakeholders - Book 162. Tan, X.W.A., and Bunnell, T., “Extending aspirations: Taipei 2 the engagement planning workbook, Melbourne: Victorian street performers and collaborative possibility”,Transactions Government Department of Sustainability and Environment. of the Institute of British Geographers, 1-14, September 146. Representatives of MTRC and HKFYG, interview with authors, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12344, (accessed 13 22 April 2020. December 2019). Also see Chen, H.W. (2014), “Everyday Musical Spaces: Street Music in Taipei” in Globalization and 147. Hong Kong Police Force, written communication with New Intra-urban Dynamics in Asian Cities, eds. Aveline- authors, 13 August 2020. Dubach, N; Jou S.C. and Hsiao, H.H.M., Taipei: National 148. Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, written Taiwan University Press. communication with authors, 21 September 2020. 163. Ooi, Can-Seng, “Subjugated in the Creative Industries: The 149. Representatives of Yau Tsim and Mong Kok District Fine Arts in Singapore”, Culture Unbound, 2011, Volume 3, Environmental Hygiene Offices, Food and Environmental pp. 119– 137, http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v3/a11/ Hygiene Department, interview with authors, 18 March cu11v3a11.pdf, (accessed 15 September 2020). 2020. 164. Taipei City Department of Cultural Affairs, “Provisions for 150. Representatives of MTRC and HKFYG, interview with authors, the Licensing of Arts Activities by Street Artists in Taipei 22 April 2020. City”, November 2005, Taipei City Government https:// www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxv 151. Mong Kok Roman, street performer, interview with authors, YWQvcHVibGljL0F0dGFjaG1lbnQvNjQxMTg1ODQ3Mj 16 March 2020. gucGRm&n=NjQxMTg1ODQ3 MjgucGRm&icon=..pdf 152. Arrvin, street performer, interview with authors, 11 February (accessed 4 June 2020). 2020. 165. Dawn, “Busking in Taipei City: An Interview with Simon 153. Ng, Y. Y. June, Walkability Task Force, Transport Department, Chen”, 14 November 2015, The Busking Project, https://busk. interview with authors, 19 February 2020. co/blog/busking-in/busking-taipei/ (accessed 4 June 2020). 154. Yuen, C., “Gov’t backtracks on Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront 166. Low, Z.Q, “Street Performers Juggle Regulations in Taiwan”, development, will adopt ‘simplified plan’”,Hong Kong The News Lens, 21 June 2017, https://international. Free Press, 17 February 2016, https://hongkongfp. thenewslens.com/article/70810 (accessed 4 June 2020). com/2016/02/17/government-to-cancel-renewal-plan-on- 167. Ibid. avenue-of-stars-sources-say-awaiting-gov-announcement/ (accessed 6 July 2020). 168. Ho, Cheng-I, Director of Taiwan Street Arts and Culture Development Association, interview with authors, 20 155. Ng, Y. Y. June, Walkability Task Force, Transport Department, February 2020. interview with authors, 19 February 2020. 169. Taipei City Department of Cultural Affairs, “Key Points 156. For example, some of Taipei’s license conditions require for the Implementation of Arts Activities by Street performers not to “damage or adversely impact the overall Artists in Taipei City”, November 2015, Taipei City image of street artists”. Taipei City Department of Cultural Government, https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download. Affairs, “Key Points for the Implementation of Arts Activities ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvcHVibGljL0F0dGFjaG1 by Street Artists in Taipei City”, November 2015, Taipei lbnQvNjQxMTg1ODQ3MjgucGRm&n=NjQxMTg1ODQ3Mj City Government, https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download. gucGRm&icon=..pdf (accessed 4 June 2020). ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvcHVibGljL0F0dGFjaG1 lbnQvNjQxMTg1ODQ3MjgucGRm&n=NjQxMTg1ODQ3Mj 170. National Arts Council, “A Guide to the Busking Scheme in gucGRm&icon=..pdf (accessed 4 June 2020). Singapore”, 2018, Singapore Government, https://www.nac. gov.sg/dam/jcr:72990e0d-8798-4eee-9781-e6dfcf0ebb61 157. On street performance in Taipei, see Tan, X.W.A., and (accessed 5 June 2020). Bunnell, T., “Extending aspirations: Taipei street performers and collaborative possibility”,Transactions of the Institute 171. Ahman, N. “Singapore River Busker’s Festival,”Singapore of British Geographers, 1-14, September 2019, https://doi. Infopedia, 2016, Singapore Government, https://eresources. org/10.1111/tran.12344, (accessed 13 December 2019). On nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_445_2005-01-05.html, Melbourne, see Quilter, J. and McNamara, L., “Long May (accessed 5 June 2020). the Buskers Carry On Busking: Street Music and the Law 172. Nick, “Singapore’s Permit System”, The Busking Project, 20 in Melbourne and Sydney”, University of Melbourne Law June 2011, https://busk.co/blog/our-journey/singapores- Review, 2005, vol.39 no.2, pp. 539-591. permit-system/ (accessed 5 June 2020). 158. Kong, L., “Music and Moral Geographies: Construction of 173. Yu Tak-po, Yau Tsim Mong District Councillor, interview with ‘Nation” and Identity in Singapore”,GeoJournal , February authors, 4 March 2020. Also see Tan, Xiang Yeow, “Freeing 2006, vol. 65 no.1/2, pp.103-111. Singapore’s Street Performances”, Kentridge Common, 159. Singapore National Arts Council, “A Guide to the 25 October 2013, https://kentridgecommon.com/freeing- Busking Scheme in Singapore”, October 2018, Singapore singapores-street-performances/ (accessed 5 June 2020). Government, https://www.nac.gov.sg/dam/jcr:1a67aaf2- eb74-401c-b88d-8ac2c0740166/A-Guide-to-the-Busking- Scheme-in-Singapore_Oct-2018.pdf (accessed 4 June 2020).

76 174. City of Melbourne, “About Busking”, June 2020, Australia: 189. Hadi, E.A., “Parliament: National Arts Council exploring City of Melbourne, https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ idea of larger busking areas instead of specific spots for arts-and-culture/film-music-busking/street-entertainment- buskers: Baey”, Straits Times, 5 August 2019, https://www. busking/Pages/about-busking.aspx (accessed 5 June 2020). straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-national-arts-council- exploring-idea-of-larger-busking-areas-instead-of-specific 175. Ibid. (accessed 5 June 2020). Elangovan, N, “Balloting for sites, app 176. Ibid. Also see Silva, K. “Melbourne buskers to face public for buskers on the cards following MP’s suggestions”, Today, auditions as new permit regulations begin”, 9 April 2019, 6 August 2019, https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ ABC News, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/ busking-scene-here-could-soon-see-balloting-mobile-app- melbourne-bourke-street-mall-busker-public-auditions- after-mps-suggestions (accessed 5 June 2020). begin/10981868 (accessed 5 June 2020). 190. Elangovan, N, “Balloting for sites, app for buskers on the 177. Gustavo and Anna, street performers, interview with cards following MP’s suggestions”,Today , 6 August 2019, authors, 30 January 2020. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/busking-scene- here-could-soon-see-balloting-mobile-app-after-mps- 178. City of Melbourne, “Safety, Amenity and Performance suggestions (accessed 5 June 2020). Reviews”, June 2020, Australia: City of Melbourne, https:// www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/arts-and-culture/film-music- 191. City of Melbourne, “Busking Locations”, June 2020, Australia: busking/street-entertainment-busking/busking-permits/ City of Melbourne, https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ Pages/safety-amenity-performance-reviews.aspx (accessed arts-and-culture/film-music-busking/street-entertainment- 5 June 2020). busking/Pages/busking-locations.aspx (accessed 5 June 2020). 179. Camden Council, “Street Entertainment Policy”, November 2013, Borough of Camden, London, https:// 192. City of Melbourne, “Melbourne Busking Handbook 2018”, www.camden.gov.uk/documents/20142/1598116/ 2018, Australia: City of Melbourne, https://www.melbourne. Street+Entertainment+Policy.pdf/10f24b5a-a1c2-1976-e7a9- vic.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/melbourne-busking- c5165678325b (accessed 5 June 2020). handbook.pdf (accessed 5 June 2020). 180. National Arts Council, “List of Designated Busking Locations”, 193. Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (2019), Chapter January 2020, Singapore Government, https://www.nac. V, Article 82, Laws and Regulations of the Republic of gov.sg/dam/jcr:cde41178-8aa7-4b59-803f-fa9a6fb8e680 China, https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll. (accessed 5 June 2020). aspx?pcode=K0040012, (accessed 10 February, 2020).

181. Taipei Busker, 展演空間地圖索引 ”Performance space map 194. Social Order Maintenance Act (2019), Chapter 1, Articles index” (Chinese only), 2017, Department of Cultural Affairs, 63, 68, and 73, Laws and Regulations of the Republic of Taipei City, https://busker.culture.tw/taipei/place/map, China, https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll. (accessed 5 June 2020). aspx?pcode=D0080067, (accessed 10 February 2020). 182. Chen, H.W. (2014), “Everyday Musical Spaces: Street Music 195. Noise Control Act (2008), Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8, Laws and in Taipei” in Globalization and New Intra-urban Dynamics Regulations of the Republic of China, https://law.moj.gov.tw/ in Asian Cities, eds. Aveline-Dubach, N; Jou S.C. and Hsiao, ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=O0030001, (accessed 4 H.H.M., Taipei: National Taiwan University Press. June 2020). 183. Low, Z.Q, “Street Performers Juggle Regulations in Taiwan”, 196. Tan, X.W.A., and Bunnell, T., “Extending aspirations: Taipei The News Lens, 21 June 2017, https://international. street performers and collaborative possibility”,Transactions thenewslens.com/article/70810 (accessed 4 June 2020). of the Institute of British Geographers, 1-14, September 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12344, (accessed 13 184. Anonymous, “Buskers Seek Space as Street Art Booms”, December 2019). Taipei Times, 12 December 2012, http://www.taipeitimes. com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/12/12/2003549971 197. Noise Control Act (2008), Articles 6, 7 and 8, Laws and (accessed 5 June 2020). Regulations of the Republic of China, https://law.moj.gov.tw/ ENG/LawClass/LawParaDeatil.aspx?pcode=O0030001&bp=2 185. Hadi, E.A, “Scheme for Street Performers to be Improved”, (accessed 5 June 2020). Straits Times, 6 August 2019, https://www.straitstimes. com/singapore/scheme-for-street-performers-set-to-be- 198. Tan, X.W.A., and Bunnell, T., “Extending aspirations: Taipei improved (accessed 5 June 2020). street performers and collaborative possibility”,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 1-14, September 186. Elangovan, N, “Balloting for sites, app for buskers on the 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12344, (accessed 13 cards following MP’s suggestions”,Today , 6 August 2019, December 2019). https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/busking-scene- here-could-soon-see-balloting-mobile-app-after-mps- 199. Quilter, J. and McNamara, L., “Long May the Buskers Carry suggestions (accessed 5 June 2020). Also see National Arts On Busking: Street Music and the Law in Melbourne and Council, “Busking Application Form – Solo”, Government of Sydney”, University of Melbourne Law Review, 2005, vol.39 Singapore, https://www.nac.gov.sg/dam/jcr:436eae7d-8ac5- no.2, pp. 539-591. 4ac0-ba07-c5df9723d2e2 (accessed 18 December 2019). 200. City of Melbourne, “Melbourne Busking Handbook 2018”, 187. Yu Tak-po, Yau Tsim Mong District Councillor, interview with 2018, Australia: City of Melbourne, https://www.melbourne. authors, 4 March 2020. vic.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/melbourne-busking- handbook.pdf (accessed 5 June 2020). 188. Anonymous, “Buskers Seek Space as Street Art Booms”, Taipei Times, 12 December 2012, http://www.taipeitimes. 201. Quilter, J. and McNamara, L., “Long May the Buskers Carry com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/12/12/2003549971 On Busking: Street Music and the Law in Melbourne and (accessed 5 June 2020). Sydney”, University of Melbourne Law Review, 2005, vol.39 no.2, pp. 539-591.

77 ENDNOTES

202. Ibid. 215. Local Government Association, “Public Spaces Protection Orders”, February 2018, United Kingdom, https://www. 203. Doumpa, V. and Broad, N., “The Beat of the Street”, April local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.21%20 2014, The Busking Project, https://busk.co/blog/wpcontent/ PSPO%20guidance_06_1.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). Fixed uploads/2017/03/2017TheBeatoftheStreetReport_FINAL. penalty fines (e.g. like parking tickets) circumvent normal pdf, (accessed 15 September 2020). requirements to issue verbal and written warnings before 204. Quilter, J. and McNamara, L., “Long May the Buskers Carry prosecution as well as the requirement to present evidence On Busking: Street Music and the Law in Melbourne and in court unless the recipient chooses to contest the fine. Sydney”, University of Melbourne Law Review, 2005, vol.39 216. Anonymous, “Huge Increase in Public Spaces Protection no.2, pp. 539-591. Order Fines”, 19 April 2019, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/ 205. Nick, “Singapore’s Permit System”, The Busking Project, 20 news/uk-england-47982434 (accessed 8 June 2020). June 2011, https://busk.co/blog/our-journey/singapores- Heap, V. and Dickinson, J. (2018), Public Spaces Protection permit-system/ (accessed 5 June 2020). Orders: A Critical Policy Analysis, Safer Communities, vol. 17, i.3, pp.182-192. https://pdfs.semanticscholar. 206. Ibid. org/c124/59c5e6b88924fa87f3a1fd4fdc3e1cf4688f.pdf 207. Public Entertainments Act (2017), Section 19, Singapore (accessed 8 June 2020). Government, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PEA1958#pr19- 217. Robinson, Jonathan, Programme Director, MusicTank, UK, (accessed 5 June 2020). interview with authors, 9 January 2020. 208. Devi, R. “More Young Buskers Staking their Claim on 218. Praha.eu, “Prague Has New Ordinance for Street Art Singapore’s Streets”, 19 December 2017, Yahoo Lifestyle Production – Busking”, 8 January 2020, Czech Republic: Singapore, https://sg.style.yahoo.com/young-buskers- Prague City Hall, “http://www.praha.eu/jnp/en/about_ staking-claim-singapore-streets-074936572.html (accessed 4 prague/city_administration/city_hall/prague_has_new_ June 2020). ordinance_for_street_art_1.html (accessed 8 June 2020). 209. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (2017), “Street 219. Ibid. Entertainment (Busking) Policy: Draft Proposal for Busking Policy”, UK: Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 220. Ibid. https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Street%20Entertainment%20 221. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (2020), (Busking)%20Policy.pdf (accessed 28 April 2020). “Controlling busking in the Borough - Public Space Protection 210. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, “Executive Orders (PSPOs)”, UK: Royal Borough of Kensington Decision Report: Busking and Street Entertainment Policy and Chelsea, https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/environment/ and Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs)”, 10 July 2019, environmental-health/noise-and-nuisance/controlling- Forward Plan reference: 05268/18/T/A, UK: Royal Borough busking-borough-public-space (accessed 8 June 2020). of Kensington and Chelsea. https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/ 222. Ibid. committees/Document.ashx? czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4 zNRBcoShgo=QBaM%2BCoKZ16eJTs7jHI3O6BD2OSaOQ 223. Warerkar, T., “Times Square’s transformation into a gztocGAtOOUPlvHOxSce0bAw%3D%3D&rUzwRPf%2BZ pedestrian-friendly space captured in photos”, NY Curbed, 3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3D%3D=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQ 19 April 2017, https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15358234/ WCtPHwdhUfCZ%2FLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3D%3D&m times-square-snohetta-before-after-photos (accessed 8 June CTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&k 2020). Cx1AnS9%2FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100% 224. Goodman, J.D., “A Man Dressed as Spider Man is Arrested 3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA After Scuffle with Police in Times Square”, %3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQbur New York Times, HA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf 27 July 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/ 55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz= nyregion/man-dressed-as-spider-man-is-arrested-after- ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZM scuffle-with-police-in-times-square.html (accessed 8 June waG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D, (accessed 15 September 2020). 2020). 225. Goodyear, S., “A National Model for Better Streets Is 211. Int 1109-2016, Local Laws No.53 (2016), New York City, New Suddenly at Risk”, Citylab, 24 August 2015, https://www. York, USA, https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail. citylab.com/transportation/2015/08/a-national-model-for- aspx?ID=2597317&GUID=56AB0593-7AB9-4595-BED3-FB2 better-streets-is-suddenly-at-risk/402129/ (accessed 8 June 92E6E1FC6&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=1109-2016 2020). (accessed 30 April 2016). 226. Times Square Alliance, “A Roadmap for the 21st 212. Local Government Association, “Public Spaces Protection Century in Times Square”, date unknown, http://www. Orders”, February 2018, United Kingdom, https://www.local. abettertimessquare.org/the-plan (accessed 8 June 2020). gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.21%20PSPO%20 227. New York City Department of Transportation, “Notice of guidance_06_1.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). Adoption of Rules related to Pedestrian Plazas”, 22 April 213. Ibid. 2016, USA: New York City, https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/ downloads/pdf/notice-of-adoption-plaza-rules.pdf (accessed 214. Robinson, Jonathan, Programme Director, MusicTank, UK, 8 June 2020). interview with authors, 9 January 2020. 228. George Mason University Centre for Evidence-based Crime Policy, “What is Broken Windows Policing?”, 2020, USA: George Mason University, https://cebcp.org/evidence- based-policing/what-works-in-policing/research-evidence- review/broken-windows-policing/ (accessed 8 June 2020).

78 229. Fixed penalty fines for violating PSPOs under the Anti-Social 245. Bath and North East Somerset Council, “The Guide to Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) can be issued by Busking and Street Performance in Bath”, February 2016, UK: a police officer, a police community support officer, council Bath and North East Somerset, https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/ officer or other person designated by the council. “Other sites/default/files/busker_guide.pdf (accessed 6 May 2020). persons” can include private security guards. Royal Borough 246. Ibid. of Kensington and Chelsea, “Executive Decision Report: Busking and Street Entertainment Policy and Public Space 247. Ibid. Protection Orders (PSPOs)”, 10 July 2019, Forward Plan reference: 05268/18/T/A, UK: Royal Borough of Kensington 248. Hermer, J. (2019), Policing Compassion: Begging, Law and and Chelsea. Power in Public Spaces, Oxford, England: Hart. 230. Heap, V. and Dickinson, J. (2018), Public Spaces Protection 249. Broad, Nick., co-founder of The Busking Project, interview Orders: A Critical Policy Analysis,Safer Communities, with authors, 20 February 2020. vol. 17, i.3, pp.182-192. https://pdfs.semanticscholar. 250. Ibid. org/c124/59c5e6b88924fa87f3a1fd4fdc3e1cf4688f.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 251. Capital & Counties Properties PLC (2019), “Street Performer Auditions”, Covent Garden, UK: London, https://www. 231. Sanchez, H., “Arrests Down, But Complaints About coventgarden.london/street-performers/auditions (accessed Pushy Costumed Characters in Times Square Persist”, 8 June 2020). CBS New York, 31 July 2017, https://newyork.cbslocal. com/2017/07/31/times-square-characters/ (accessed 8 June 252. Broad, N. “The Covent Garden Street Performers 2020). Association”, The Busking Project, 31 October 2011, https:// busk.co/blog/busking-beat/the-covent-garden-street- 232. Pooler, T. and Cadoff, B., “Unmasking Times Square: A Needs- performers-association/ (accessed 8 June 2020). based Assessment Survey with Ticket Sellers, Costumed Characters and Others”, Centre for Court Innovation, 253. Ibid. https://www.newsweek.com/times-square-costumed- 254. Busking pitches in Westminster became more crowded after performers-1459285 (accessed 8 June 2020). other boroughs such as Camden and Kensington and Chelsea 233. Ibid. adopted more restrictive policies. 234. Ibid. 255. City of Westminster (2020), “Busking and Street Entertainment in Westminster – Draft Policy 2020”, UK: 235. Ibid. Westminster, London https://www.westminster.gov.uk/sites/ 236. Ibid. default/files/street_entertainment_policy_consultation.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 237. Anonymous, “Busking Will Die After New Decree, a Street Drummer Wrote to the Readers of iDNES.cz”, (“Busking 256. Ibid. po nové vyhlášce umře, napsal čtenářům iDNES.cz pouliční 257. Broad, Nick., co-founder of The Busking Project, interview bubeník”) (Czech only), iDNES.cz, 15 February 2016, https:// with authors, 20 February 2020. www.idnes.cz/praha/zpravy/online-chat-s-buskerem. A160215_090717_praha-zpravy_nub (accessed 8 June 258. Simpson, P. (2011), “Street Performance and the 2020). City: Public Space, Sociality and Intervening in the Everyday”, Space and Culture, 14(4) 415-430, https://doi. 238. Maseychik, A. and Macková V., “How is Street Performance org/10.1177/1206331211412270, (accessed 10 April 2020). Art Regulated in Prague?”, Prague Correspondent, 7 September 2017, http://prague-correspondent.fsv.cuni. 259. Job, “Sunday in Berlin: Karaoke in Mauerpark”, Enjoy Berlin, cz/?p=1419 (accessed 8 June 2020). 18 August 2018, https://berlin-enjoy.com/must-see/parks- and-nature/sunday-karaoke-in-mauerpark/ (accessed 8 June 239. Prague City Council (2016) “Generally Binding Decree on 2020). Restrictive Measures to Safeguard Local Matters of Public Order in Connection with the Operation of Street Art 260. Broad, Nick., co-founder of The Busking Project, interview Public Production in Publicly Accessible Places,” (amended with authors, 20 February 2020. 2019), Czech Republic: Prague (translated from Czech), 261. Gray, David, Director at Keep Streets Live Campaign, http://kultura.praha.eu/file/3056803/OZV_1_2016_s_ interview with authors, 27 February 2020. vyznacenim_zmen_po_novele.pdf (accessed 30 April 2020). 262. Westminster Street Performer’s Association (2020), “Our 240. Gray, David, Director at Keep Streets Live Campaign, Current Fight”, UK: London, https://westminsterspa.co.uk/ interview with authors, 27 February 2020. (accessed 8 June 2020). 241. Hermer, J. (2019), Policing Compassion: Begging, Law and 263. Broad, Nick., co-founder of The Busking Project, interview Power in Public Spaces, Oxford, England: Hart. with authors, 20 February 2020. . 242. Gray, David, Director at Keep Streets Live Campaign, 264. West Kowloon Cultural District Authority, “West Kowloon interview with authors, 27 February 2020. Cultural District (Public Open Space) Guidelines for Street 243. Broad, Nick., co-founder of The Busking Project, interview Performance Scheme”, June 2019, Hong Kong: HKSAR with authors, 20 February 2020. Government, https://webmedia.westkowloon.hk/media/_ file/Park/street-performance-guidelines-en-20190619. 244. Simpson, P., “Street Performance and the City: Public Space, pdf?_ga=2.117452864.837216573.1590986566- Sociality, and Intervening in the Everyday”, Space and 551081244.1589799760 (accessed 1 June 2020). Culture, September 2011, 14(4), pp. 415-430.

79 ENDNOTES

265. Yu, Tak-po, Yau Tsim Mong District Councillor, interview with 277. Mr. S, a representative of Legislative Councillor Ma Fung authors, 4 March 2020. Kwok, Legislative Council Member, interview with authors, 2020. 266. Hong Kong Police Force, “Guidance Note on Musical Instrument Permit Application”, date unknown, Hong Kong: 278. Ibid. HKSAR Government, https://www.police.gov.hk/info/doc/ 279. Ng, Y. Y. June, Walkability Task Force, Transport Department, licensing/general/en/gn_mip_en.pdf (accessed 1 June 2020). interview with authors, 19 February 2020. 267. Lai, C. and Da Roza, A. “Managing Vibrant Streets”, April 280. Information Services Department, “DH’s Tobacco Control 2018, Civic Exchange: Hong Kong, https://civic-exchange.org/ Office strengthens tobacco enforcement work (with wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Managing-Vibrant-Streets-for- photos)”, Press Release, 26 June 2018, HKSAR Government, web.pdf, (accessed 1 June 2020). https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201806/26/ 268. HKSAR Government v. Wong Chung-sing, 香港特別行政區 P2018062600820.htm (accessed 2 June 2020). 訴 黃宗成 HCMA 161/2009, 21 October 2009, Court of First 281. Lai, C. and Da Roza, A. “Managing Vibrant Streets”, April Instance – Magistracy Appeal, Hong Kong, https://www. 2018, Civic Exchange: Hong Kong, https://civic-exchange.org/ hklii.hk/chi/hk/cases/hkcfi/2015/1666.html (accessed 1 June wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Managing-Vibrant-Streets-for- 2020). (Chinese Only) web.pdf, (accessed 1 June 2020). 269. Fire Services Department, “Guidelines on Formulation of 282. Melville, Mary., spokesperson of the Tsim Sha Tsui Residents’ Guidelines on Formulation of Fire Safety Requirements Fire Concern Group, interview with authors. 20 March 2020. Safety Requirements for New Railway Infrastructures New Railway Infrastructures”, January 2013, HKSAR Government, 283. Yu, Tak-po, Yau Tsim Mong District Councillor, interview with https://www.hkfsd.gov.hk/eng/source/safety/Guidelines_ authors, 4 March 2020. for_New_Railway.pdf (accessed 2 July 2020). 284. Melville, M., spokesperson of the Tsim Sha Tsui Residents’ 270. Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance, Cap. 172, Section Concern Group, interview with authors. 20 March 2020. 4, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.elegislation. gov.hk/hk/cap172?xpid=ID_1438402792069_001 (accessed 285. Home Affairs Department, “Information on shop front 1 June 2020). extensions”, 15 April 2020, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.had.gov.hk/en/public_services/information_ 271. Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, “Information on_shop_front_extensions/index.htm (accessed 27 May on Application for Places of Public Entertainment Licence 2020). and Temporary Places of Public Entertainment Licence”, October 2018, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https:// 286. Yan-yan, street performer, interview with authors, 16 March www.fehd.gov.hk/english/licensing/info_PPEL_e.pdf 2020. K.K., street performer, interview with authors, 18 (accessed 1 June 2020). In 2014, the Court of Final Appeal March 2020. defined “place of public entertainment” to mean places 287. Pong, Yat-ming, street performer, interview with authors, 12 where the organisers are able to control admission, which February 2020. exempts street performers and other entertainments carried out in public places where anyone can gain access. However, 288. Taipei City Department of Cultural Affairs, “Provisions for the in practice, TPPEs are still required for public festivals and Licensing of Arts Activities by Street Artists in Taipei City”, events, especially where street closures are involved. Please November 2005, Taipei City Government, , https://www-ws. see T. and Commissioner of Police, Final Appeal No. 3 of gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvcH 2014 (Civil), 10 September 2014, Hong Kong, https://legalref. VibGljL0F0dGFjaG1lbnQvNjQxMTg1ODQ3MjgucGRm&n= judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_ NjQxMTg1ODQ3MjgucGRm&icon=..pdf (accessed 4 frame.jsp?DIS=94768&QS=%2B&TP=JU&ILAN=en (accessed June 2020), Taipei City Department of Cultural Affairs, 1 June 2020). “Key Points for the Implementation of Arts Activities by Street Artists in Taipei City”, November 2015, Taipei City 272. Zimmerman, P., Southern District Councillor, personal Government, https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u= communication with authors, 15 April 2020. LzAwMS9VcGxv YWQvcHVibGljL0F0dGFjaG1lbnQvNjQxMT 273. Environmental Protection Department, “Noise Control kwMDg3LnBkZg%3d%3d &n=NjQxMTkwMDg3LnBkZg Ordinance”, date unknown, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, %3d%3d&icon=..pdf (accessed 4 June 2020). https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/noise_education/web/ENG_ 289. Ibid. EPD_HTML/m3/ordinance_7.html (accessed 2 June 2020). 290. Low, Z.Q, “Street Performers Juggle Regulations in Taiwan”, 274. Hong Kong Police Force, written communication with The News Lens, 21 June 2017, https://international. authors, 13 August 2020. thenewslens.com/article/70810 (accessed 4 June 2020). 275. Note that while the LCSD has voluntarily chosen to make 291. Legislative Council Research Office, "Policy on Street reference to EPD Noise Control Guidelines for Music, Singing Performance Activities", ISE06/18-19, 22 May 2019, https:// and Instrument Performance Activities, for performance www.legco.gov.hk/research-publications/english/essentials- activities within parks and cultural venues, in such cases they 1819ise06-policy-on-street-performance-activities.htm, are not actually enforcing the Noise Control Ordinance, but (accessed 15 September 2020). the Pleasure Grounds Regulation or their own house rules. 0. 292. Department of Cultural Affairs, “Inspection Criteria for Street 276. Ho, Louis (2017), “From ‘no cultural policy’ to ‘centralised Performances in Taipei City”, November 2015, Taipei City market orientation’: The political economy of Hong Kong Government, https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx? cultural policy (1997–2015)”, Global Media and China, v.2 i.1, u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvcHVibGljL0F0dGFjaG1lbnQvNj pp. 57-73. QxMTkwMzI3Mi5wZGY%3d&n =NjQxMTkwMzI3Mi5wZGY% 3d&icon=..pdf (accessed 5 June 2020).

80 293. Department of Cultural Affairs, “Taipei Busker”, Republic of 304. New York City (2019), “New York City Administrative China: Taipei City Government, https://busker.culture.tw/ Code”, Title 10, 10-108 Regulation of sound devices taipei, (accessed 5 June 2020). (Chinese only) or apparatus, http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/ gateway.dll/New%20York/admin/title10publicsafety/ 294. National Arts Council, “A Guide to the Busking Scheme in chapter1publicsafety?f=templates$fn=default. Singapore”, 2018, Singapore Government, https://www.nac. htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:newyork_ny$anc=JD_10-108 gov.sg/dam/jcr:72990e0d-8798-4eee-9781-e6dfcf0ebb61 (accessed 8 June 2020). (accessed 5 June 2020). 305. New York City (2018), “Rules of New York“, Title 15, 295. City of Melbourne, “Melbourne Busking Handbook 2018”, Chapter 47 Noise Code Penalty Schedule, http://library. 2018, Australia: City of Melbourne, https://www.melbourne. amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/New%20York/rules/ vic.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/melbourne-busking- title15departmentofenvironmentalprotecti/chapter47 handbook.pdf (accessed 5 June 2020). noisecodepenaltyschedule?f=templates$fn=default.htm 296. Sparrow, J., “What About Our Rights? Can Melbourne’s New $3.0$vid=amlegal: newyork_ny$anc=JD_T15C047 (accessed Busking Rules Strike a Chord?” The Guardian, 8 July 2019, 8 June 2020). https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2019/jul/08/what- 306. Metropolitan Transport Authority Transit Adjudication about-our-rights-can-melbournes-new-busking-rules-strike- Bureau (2020), “Rules of Conduct and Fines”, USA: New York a-chord (accessed 5 June 2020). City, http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudication 297. Noise levels are measured as the A-weighted equivalent Bureau/Rules%20of%20Conduct%20and%20Fines.pdf continuous sound level over 1 minute (LAeq 1 min) in (accessed 8 June 2020). decibels (dB). “1 metre sound level 81 dB LAeq 1 min” 307. Department of Parks and Recreation (2020), “Section 1-07 essentially means that the sound level measured at a Penalties”, USA: New York City, https://www.nycgovparks. distance of 1 metre must not exceed an average of 81 org/rules/section-1-07 (accessed 8 June 2020). decibels over 1 minute. 308. Broad, N. “Research on Busking Licenses in 34 Cities 298. City of Melbourne, “Busking Locations”, June 2020, Australia: Worldwide”, The Busking Project, March 28 2017, https:// City of Melbourne, https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ busk.co/blog/busking-tips-tricks/busking-licenses- arts-and-culture/film-music-busking/street-entertainment- worldwide/ (accessed 8 June 2020). busking/Pages/busking-locations.aspx (accessed 5 June 2020). 309. Ibid. 299. Melbourne City Council, “Activities Local Law 2019”, 310. Praha.eu, “Prague Has New Ordinance for Street Art Schedule 1, Australia: City of Melbourne, https://www. Production – Busking”, 8 January 2020, Czech Republic: melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/activities- Prague City Hall, “http://www.praha.eu/jnp/en/about_ local-law-2019.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). Fines are in terms prague/city_administration/city_hall/prague_has_new_ of “penalty units”, which are indexed annually in order to ordinance_for_street_art_1.html (accessed 8 June 2020). account for inflation. In July 2019-June 2020, 1 penalty unit 311. Bath and North East Somerset Council, “The Guide to was set at AU$$165.22. Victoria Legal Aid, “Penalty Units”, Busking and Street Performance in Bath”, February 2016, UK: 27 February 2020, Australia: Government of Victoria, https:// Bath and North East Somerset, https://www.bathnes.gov.uk/ www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/fines-and- sites/default/files/busker_guide.pdf (accessed 6 May 2020). infringements/penalty-units (accessed 8 June 2020). 312. Busk in London, “Buskers’ Code”, date unknown, UK: London, 300. Metropolitan Transport Authority, "Subway Performer https://5f2868c1-241d-4884-a74d-396ff9c4571a.filesusr. Rules", date unknown, USA: New York City, http://web.mta. com/ ugd/63966d_c93c506e6f8b49b6967800658a1bca0a. info/nyct/rules/SubwayPerformerRules.htm, (accessed 15 pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). September 2020). 313. Broad, Nick., co-founder of The Busking Project, interview 301. Metropolitan Transport Authority, “Subway Performance with authors, 20 February 2020. Rules”, date unknown, New York City, https://law.justia.com/ codes/new-york/2006/new-york-city-administrative-code- 314. Found in Music, “Busk in London: The World’s Largest new/adc010-108_10-108.html (accessed 8 June 2020). Street Performance Programme”, UK: London, https://www. foundinmusic.com/busk-in-london (accessed 8 June 2020). 302. City of New York (2005), “New York City Noise Control Code: Local Laws of the City of New York for 2005, no. 113”, Section 315. City of Westminster (2020), “Busking and Street 24-233 b (2), Section 24-244, USA: New York City, https:// Entertainment in Westminster – Draft Policy 2020”, UK: www1.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/air/noise/noise- Westminster, London https://www.westminster.gov.uk/sites/ code-full-version.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). default/files/street_entertainment_policy_consultation.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 303. New York City (2016), “Rules of the City of New York”, Title 34, Chapter 3, Section 3-01 Department of Transportation Penalty Schedule, http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway. dll/New%20York/rules/title34departmentoftransportation/ chapter3penaltyschedule?f=templates$fn=default. htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:newyork_ny$anc=JD_T34C003_3-01 (accessed 8 June 2020).

81 MANAGING VIBRANT STREETS 2 Street Performance Policy in Hong Kong (Interim Report)

Carine Lai | Ximin Zhou

© Civic Exchange, 2020 September 2020

23/F, Chun Wo Commercial Centre, 23-29 Wing Wo Street, Central, Hong Kong T (852) 2893 0213 F (852) 3105 9713 www.civic-exchange.org