STAGE II PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT
SUBMITTED TO
ENERGIZING KOWLOON EAST OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUREAU
Public engagement process on “Kai Tak Fantasy – International Ideas Competition on Urban Planning and Design”
Social Sciences Research Centre The University of Hong Kong
September 2014
Contents
Page Chapter One Introduction 3 1.1 Background 3 1.1.1 The Arrangement of the Competition 3 1.1.1.1 An Overview 3 1.1.2 Competition Area and Preliminary Planning & Design Requirements 4 1.1.2.1 Kai Tak Running Tip 4 1.1.2.2 Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area 4 1.1.2.3 The Enclosed Waterbody between the Kai Tak Runway Tip and Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area 5 1.1.3 The Objectives of the Competition 1.2 Research Team 6 1.3 Stage I Public Engagement Activities 6 1.4 Stage II Public Engagement Activities 8 1.5 Channels of Feedback Received in Stage II 10 1.6 Analysis of Feedback Received in Stage II 11 1.7 Purpose of this report 12
Chapter Two Quantitative Analysis of the Feedback Questionnaire in Stage II 13 2.1 Design of Feedback Questionnaires 13 2.2 Quantity of Feedback Questionnaires 14 2.3 Statistical Analysis 15 2.4 Results of Feedback Questionnaire 16 2.4.1 Assessment of the Entries 16 2.4.1.1 Overall 16 2.4.1.2 Identity 20 2.4.1.3 Creativity 21 2.4.1.4 Neighbourhood synergy 22 2.4.1.5 Sustainability 23 2.4.2 Preference for the Key Ideas of the Entries 24 2.4.2.1 Entry A 24 2.4.2.2 Entry B 25 2.4.2.3 Entry C 26 2.4.2.4 Entry D 27 2.4.3 Demographic Information 28 2.4.3.1 Gender 28 2.4.3.2 Age 29 2.4.3.3 Education Level 29 2.4.3.4 Living District in Hong Kong 30 2.4.3.5 Living outside Hong Kong 32 2.4.3.6 Whether All Shortlisted Entries were Reviewed 33
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 1
Chapter Three Results of the Qualitative Analysis 34 3.1 Introduction 34 3.2 Feedback Channels 35 3.3 Feedback on “What the Jury Should Consider” 35 3.4 Feedback on the Individual Entries 41 3.5 Feedback on the Key Ideas of the Individual Entries 51 3.6 Feedback on Place-making or What Should be Built at KTF 53 3.7 Feedback on Other Issues 53
Chapter Four Conclusion 59 4.1 Quantitative Findings 59 4.1.1 Entry A 59 4.1.2 Entry B 59 4.1.3 Entry C 59 4.1.4 Entry D 59 4.2 Qualitative Conclusions 60 4.2.1 Assessment Criteria 60 4.2.2 Technical and Design Considerations 60 4.2.3 Specific Area 62 4.2.4 Other Comments 62 4.2.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of Entries 62 4.2.6 Public Engagement 67 4.2.7 Competition 67 4.2.8 Overall 68
Annex A Feedback Questionnaire 69 Annex B Public View Analytical Framework 71
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 2
Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Background
The Chief Executive announced in his 2013 Policy Address the proposal of setting up a recreational landmark - "Kai Tak Fantasy" (KTF) on the site of the former runway tip in the Kai Tak Development (KTD). The area has excellent potential to be developed into an attractive world class destination to serve both the local community and the visitors.
Based on the Kai Tak approved outline zoning plan, the International Ideas Competition (the Competition) looks for creative thoughts and design excellence for KTF with a view to optimising the potential of KTF for developing into a world class tourism and entertainment hub, which will have a synergy effect with the Energizing Kowloon East (EKE) initiatives in facilitating the transformation of Kowloon East to sustain the long-term economic growth of Hong Kong.
The Energizing Kowloon East Office (EKEO) of the Development Bureau launched the Kai Tak Fantasy (KTF) - International Ideas Competition on Urban Planning and Design in November 2013, and 80 submissions were received up to February 2014. The KTF Technical Committee reviewed all 80 submissions in March and submitted a report to the jury panel headed by the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul Chan, for reference. The jury panel conducted the first-stage adjudication in April, and four submissions were shortlisted to enter the second stage. The four finalists further developed and enhanced their design proposals. They were showcased at the roving exhibitions between 5 June 2014 to 5 August 2014, and public opinions on the design concepts were also collected. In parallel, the "A Place for You" video contest was held.
1.1.1 The Arrangement of the Competition
1.1.1.1 An Overview
KTF comprises the Kai Tak Runway, the Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area and the enclosed waterbody between the runway and Kwun Tong waterfront, with a total area of about 90 hectares. On the basis of the proposed land uses and broad development parameters on the Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan, participants can turn the Competition
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 3
Area into a distinctive destination open for all, a dynamic urban space for local people to enjoy, as well as an exciting attraction for tourists to visit.
1.1.2 Competition Area and Preliminary Planning & Design Requirements
1.1.2.1 Kai Tak Runway Tip
The Kai Tak runway tip is strategically located at the eastern part of the Victoria Harbour. It enjoys a panoramic harbour view, and is adjacent to Cruise Terminal Building and the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. The Kai Tak Runway Tip has the potential to be developed into a state-of-the-art and first-of-its-kind destination with a unique theme proposed by the entry submission. The entry submission should propose facilities to suit a theme to brand this unique place by giving visitors an all-round experience in learning, shopping and enjoyment. In terms of form, the facilities do not necessarily have to be confined within building structures, but can also extend to other areas on the runway tip, including the waterfront, or even spilling over onto the water body to accommodate various exhibits/displays to provide exciting place-making experiences. Participants should use the approved Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan as the basis for their proposed designs.
1.1.2.2 Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area
Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area is identified in the EKE Conceptual Master Plan as having potential for further development to facilitate the transformation of KE into an alternative Central Business District for Hong Kong. The proposed mixed uses include offices, artist workshops and office studio, retail, restaurants, outdoor performance area and waterfront promenade. Specifically the provision for art and creative industries can help transform KE into a business area with special character, promoting diversity and sustainability, increasing vibrancy of the community and strengthening the theme of Kai Tak Fantasy.
Whilst the participants are asked to propose suitable water-based activities to better utilize the piers, any relevant services, operation and maintenance should be taken into consideration.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 4
1.1.2.3 The Enclosed Waterbody between the Kai Tak Runway Tip and Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area
Different sectors of the community and professional bodies agree that a vibrant waterfront is crucial in EKE. Therefore, Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter was included in the Competition Area to allow the participants to incorporate suitable water activities in their design proposals so as to make good use of the waterbody while maintaining its function as a typhoon shelter.
1.1.3 The Objectives of the Competition
The objectives of the Competition were as follows: to establish an original and easily recognizable design theme that will epitomize the creativity and energy of Hong Kong; to create an accessible and dynamic urban space that will not only encourage ownership by the Hong Kong people, but also attract the attention of visitors; to complement the overall design and development principles of the KTD and add value to the venues and amenities in the vicinity of the KTF site; to strengthen the relationship between the land-based facilities on the harbourfront and the waterbody between the old runway and the Kwun Tong waterfront; to allow opportunities for greater use of the waterbody adjoining the KTF site; and to provide a green and low-carbon environment.
A two-stage public engagement exercise was formulated to enable more structured public engagement activities that foster community support and general consensus on the design requirements of the Competition and on the Shortlist Entries:
Stage 1 Public Engagement (20 June 2013 to 19 August 2013): to collect public views on the competition requirements; and Stage 2 Public Engagement (5 June 2014 to 5 August 2014): to collect public views on the Shortlisted Entries that will be selected by the Jury Panel among the qualified entries.
In July 2013, the EKEO commissioned the Social Science Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong (HKUSSRC) to organize and undertake the two stages of
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 5
public engagement on the “Kai Tak Fantasy – International Ideas Competition on Urban Planning and Design” (the Study).
1.2 Research Team
The team is led by Professor John Bacon-Shone, with assistance from Ms. Linda Cho, processing and analysis by Mr. Kelvin Ng, Mr. Thomas Lo, Mr. Dicky Yip, Mr. Sonny Chan, Ms. Lee Hiu Ling, Ms. Rachel Lui, Mr. Danny Chan, Mr. Peter Law, Mr. T.C. Lam, Miss Frances Fung and Miss Procy Li and logistics support from all the staff of HKUSSRC.
1.3 Stage I Public Engagement Activities
The two-month Stage I Public Engagement exercise took place between 20 June 2013 and 19 August 2013. To facilitate public discussion, information covering the Study’s background, a brief description of the objectives of the Competition, Competition Area and design requirements were disseminated to the public for general reference. In order to solicit views and comments from different sectors of the community, a series of public engagement activities were conducted as follows:
Briefing sessions with advisory bodies including District Councils, Land and Development Advisory Committee, Harbourfront Commission and The Working Group on Convention and Exhibition Industries and Tourism under the Economic Development Commission (EDC); Briefing sessions with stakeholders such as local and overseas professional institutions; Briefing sessions with media; KTF website was launched to facilitate easy access to relevant publicity and consultation materials and details of the public engagement activities; Comments were received from the Public Affairs Forum hosted by Home Affairs Bureau of the interested stakeholders; Written submissions were received either by email or letter; Public Consultation Meeting was launched to invite all interested members of the public.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 6
These engagement activities can be summarized into three categories as below:
(i) Consultation committees: - Briefing session with the Housing and Infrastructure Committee of the Kowloon City District Council was held on 27 June 2013; - Briefing session with the Wong Tai Sin District Council was held on 2 July 2013; - Briefing session with the Kwun Tong District Council was held on 9 July 2013; - Harbourfront Commission was held on 15 August 2013; - The Working Group on Convention and Exhibition Industries and Tourism under the Economic Development Commission (EDC) was held on 13 September 2013; and - Land and Development Advisory Committee (LDAC) was held on 6 August 2013.
(ii) Professional institutes: - Briefing session with the Local Professional Institutions was held on 19 June 2013 and 6 organizations participated ; and - Briefing session with the Overseas Professional Institutions was held on 8 July 2013 and 4 organizations participated.
(iii) Public: - Briefing session with the Media was held on 20 June 2013 and 23 media organizations participated; - Public Consultation Meeting was held on 27 July 2013 and 47 members of the public participated; - 5 comments were received from the Public Affairs Forum hosted by Home Affairs Bureau; and - 15 written submissions were received during the public engagement period.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 7
1.4 Stage II Public Engagement Activities
The two-month Stage II Public Engagement exercise took place between 5 June 2014 and 5 August 2014. To facilitate the public engagement process, information covering the Study’s background and the four shortlisted submissions were disseminated to the public for general reference. The four shortlisted entries were labeled as Entry A-D and the four teams were requested to submit two sets of reduced images of all nine panels (i.e. three in Stage 1 and six more in Stage 2) in A3 size mounted in foam board (about 5mm in thick) for outreach opinion surveys and a video clip1 (not more than 3 minutes) with subtitles (English and Chinese) to summarize the idea and design concepts for public inspection. The information and feedback materials should not reveal the identity of the submitting teams. The panels submitted by the teams were mounted in the display panels for demonstration in the mobile exhibitions and the video clips were shown in random order in the mobile exhibitions and schools.
For the schools, HKUSSRC sent out invitation letters, which mentioned that the School Engagement Activity was supported by the Education Bureau, to all secondary schools in Hong Kong in March 2014 and 22 secondary schools agreed in principle to participate in the activities. Finally, a total of 16 secondary schools were visited. Before each school visit, HKUSSRC provided a parental/guardian passive consent form to each student to ensure that parents did not object to their participation in the activities. During the school visit, HKUSSRC provided A4 colour double-sided copies of all panels provided by the four entries to each student for their reference. There was a 15-minute briefing session to students in each school, including a 2-minute introduction of the public engagement process and display of the 3-minute video clip for each entry. Subsequently, all students were given 10 minutes to complete the paper feedback questionnaire or invited to complete the online feedback questionnaire at home.
For the roving exhibitions, all four sets of panels provided were displayed either in A3 size or A1 size in the venues, depending on space constraints. For the indoor venues, the 3-minute video clip of each entry was shown in turn on a 42-inch television display. Passer-byes were invited to look at the panels and given a pamphlet about the public engagement. After observing all the panels, they were invited to complete a self-administered questionnaire and to place the completed feedback questionnaire
1 Entry A has only a Cantonese sound track, while Entries B, C and D have Cantonese and English sound tracks. Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 8
into the collection box placed on site.
A bilingual feedback questionnaire was designed to facilitate view collection at roving exhibitions and was made available at the Competition website “http://www.kaitakfantasy.hk” as an online questionnaire to facilitate widespread use. In order to solicit views and comments of different sectors of the community, invitations were sent out to secondary schools via the Education Bureau, advisory bodies, district councils and professional institutes. A series of public engagement activities were conducted.
(a) Briefing session with advisory bodies such as the EDC and Harbourfront Commission Task Force on Kai Tak Harbourfront Development and Task Force on Water-land Interface; (b) Briefing sessions with stakeholders such as visitors from Planning Department and young members of The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers; (c) Briefing sessions with senior secondary students (i.e. F.4 to F.6) at; i. Lingnan Secondary School in Hong Kong East District on 17 June 14 ii. HKICC Lee Shau Kee School of Creativity in Kowloon City District on 19 June 14 iii. Sacred Heart Canossian College in Southern District on 23 June 14 iv. Munsang College in Kowloon City District on 24 June14 v. St Paul’s College in Central and Western District on 25 June 14 and 27 June 14 vi. Yuen Long Merchants Association Secondary School in Yuen Long District on 26 June 14 vii. Sheng Kung Hui Bishop Mok Sau Tseng Secondary School in Tai Po District on 30 June 14 viii. Queen’s College Old Boys’ Association Secondary School in Kwai Chung and Tsing Yi District on 2 July 14 ix. Queen’s College in Wan Chai District on 2 July 14 x. Sheng Kung Hui Holy Trinity Church Secondary School in Kowloon City District on 3 July 14 xi. King’s College in Central and Western District on 3 July 14 xii. The Bishop Hall Jubilee School in Kowloon City District on 7 July 14 xiii. Yuen Long Public Middle School Alumni Association Tang Siu Tong Secondary School in Yuen Long District on 7 July 14 xiv. True Light Girls’ College in Yau Tsim Mong District o 8 July 14 xv. S.K.H. Leung Kwai Yee Secondary School in Kwun Tong District on 8
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 9
July 14 xvi. Ying Wa College in Sham Shui Po District on 9 July 14 (d) In addition to the study website, a Facebook page was launched to facilitate easy access to relevant publicity and consultation materials, details of the public engagement activities (e) On-line questionnaire was available at study website; (f) Roving exhibitions of the four shortlisted submissions were held at i. Energizing Kowloon East Office in Kwun Tong between 5 June and 5 August 2014; ii. City Gallery in Central between 5 June and 5 August 2014; iii. Megabox in Kowloon Bay between 16 and 19 June 2014 iv. Hung Hom East Rail Station between 20 and 23 June 2014; v. Star Ferry Pier in Tsim Sha Tsui between 4 and 7 July 2014; vi. Hong Kong International Airport at Chek Lap Kok between 9 to 14 July 2014; vii. Cheung Sha Wan Government Offices in Cheung Sha Wan between 18 to 31 July 2014; viii. Victoria Park in Causeway Bay between 17 and 20 July 2014; and ix. PMQ Exhibition in Sheung Wan between 1 and 5 August 2014. (g) Comments were received from the Public Affairs Forum hosted by Home Affairs Bureau of the interested stakeholders; and (h) Written submissions were received either by email or letter.
1.5 Channels of Feedback Received in Stage II
Feedback and comments received through the above engagement activities were classified into the following six channels:
Adolescent questionnaires (AO): 1625 questionnaires Adult questionnaires (AD): 2469 questionnaires Written Submissions (WS): 16 submissions Events (EV): 3 event summaries Printed Media and Web News (MW): 20 printed media news reports; 29 web news reports Online Forum and Social Media (OS): 1 topic from Hong Kong Golden Discussion Forum; 1 topic from the “Hong Kong Urban Planning News” (香港 規劃情報) Facebook Page
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 10
1.6 Analysis of Feedback Received in Stage II
The feedback provided using the feedback questionnaire (other than open-ended comments) was processed and analysed using quantitative methods and the results can be found in Chapter 2 with the feedback form in Annex A. All other feedback was analysed using qualitative methods and the analysis can be found in Chapter 3 with the framework in Annex B.
All the collected data in the feedback forms (i.e. closed-ended questions) have been tabulated and analysed using SPSS 20.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software to provide percentages for the different response options, and where appropriate, cumulative percentages. The main questions have been cross-tabulated with the demographic variables.
All the feedback other than the closed-ended questions in the feedback forms has been analysed using qualitative analysis using the NVivo software, based on a framework in Annex B that is developed by the HKUSSRC in consultation with the EKEO and approved by Organising Committee to reflect the public views on the four shortlisted entries, and then extended to cover all the other issues raised in the qualitative materials collected during the PE process.
Methodology for collecting views
Surveys of randomly selected people are often considered particularly valuable as they allow collection of representative views and in that sense are often seen as the best evaluation of public opinion. However, surveys implicitly assume that respondents already understand the issues, which can be unlikely if the issues are complex (such as in this case) or do not receive wide media coverage (as is possible for KTF). It is important also to note that telephone surveys do not allow use of visual aids (which is important when considering designs with a visual component, as is the case here), online surveys have generally very low response rates and face-to-face surveys are relatively expensive. As a consequence, randomised surveys were not used in this project because of the need for visual aid support (eliminating telephone surveys) and cost of face-to-face surveys (eliminating face-to-face surveys) and because on-line surveys would add little in representativeness to the use of feedback forms.
Public feedback forms are valuable for collecting the views of stakeholders who are already highly engaged. These forms were the major mechanism for collection in this Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 11
project. The draft form was reviewed tested to ensure that the questions were clear, related directly to the issues in question and only related to issues on which the target respondents could reasonably be expected to have an informed opinion. The forms were distributed on paper (for convenience) at exhibition venues, but we encouraged use of the (environmentally friendly) online form, which was available throughout the consultation period at the KTF website. The closed-ended questions on the form allow standardized comparison of views across many respondents, while the open-ended questions allow people to express the full range of their views in an inclusive manner.
Having an open feedback process may encourage people to submit feedback multiple times in the hope of having increased influence. This makes it important to retain public trust by openly excluding responses that are obviously invalid, such as repeated identical submissions from the same IP address (i.e. the same computer or group of computers).
1.7 Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this Report is to summarize all the public comments received in the Stage II Public Engagement.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 12
Chapter Two Quantitative Analysis of the Feedback Questionnaire in Stage II
2.1 Design of Feedback Questionnaire
A bilingual feedback questionnaire was designed by the HKSSRC and consulted with the EKEO and approved by Organising Committee for wide distribution in the community. It was designed to be simple enough to be understood by anyone with secondary education. In the roving exhibition venues, the questionnaire was used in self-administered questionnaire, and was provided for the public to submit. The questionnaire was also made available as an online questionnaire to facilitate widespread use.
The feedback questionnaire mainly consists of two sections. One section asked the public’s degree of support of each entry in the following four aspects: (a) Identity (i.e. gives KTF a unique identity and a sense of place); (b) Creativity (i.e. adopts innovative and creative planning and design ideas); (c) Neighbourhood synergy (i.e. achieves harmony with the uses in the neighbourhood and creates synergy effect for transformation of Kowloon East); and (d) Sustainability (i.e. environmentally friendly and adopts green and sustainable development concepts).
The next section asked the public about their favourite idea among the three key ideas of each entry and the key ideas were given by the entries as following: (a) Entry A: A1 Seamless modern and tradition integration A2 Easy configuration with modular systems A3 Cost-effective and practical construction (b) Entry B: B1 Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment B2 Reconnect to the Mother Nature B3 Formula E Evolves the Future (c) Entry C: C1 Diverse enterprise C2 Natural ecology Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 13
C3 Healthy city (d) Entry D: D1 A Constantly evolving Flexible Space D2 Meaningfully Engage local authentic Culture D3 Experience and reconnect with nature
The public were also asked to share why they chose their favourite key ideas and any other views regarding the ideas.
For the technical aspects of each entry i.e. planning, urban design, architecture, engineering, landscape architecture and surveying, etc. the public were asked to provide their views that they thought the Jury Panel should consider.
For the other feedback, the public were asked to provide any suggestions or views regarding any other aspect of the Competition and the feedback questionnaire.
Lastly, respondents were asked to provide information including their gender, age, education and living district in Hong Kong for demographic analysis.
2.2 Quantity of Feedback Questionnaires
A total of 4,094 feedback questionnaires that contained responses were received as of 5 August 2014 and subsequently processed including 3,306 paper feedback questionnaires (1,874 self-administered questionnaires received in roving exhibitions and 1,432 self-administered feedback questionnaires received in secondary schools) and 788 on-line feedback questionnaires, excluding one duplicate online questionnaire (i.e. questionnaires with identical data from identical IP addresses and received within a one-minute period).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 14
2.3 Statistical Analysis
It is important to note that the feedback questionnaires are not a random sample of any population, so statistical tests, which assume random samples, are not appropriate.
In the following section, the results from the feedback questionnaires are presented in two groups based on the reported age of respondents, i.e. adult respondents: those aged 18 or above and adolescent respondents: those aged below 18, as their views on the entries are quite different. There is no judgement here that adolescent opinions are of less value than adults; while their views might be less mature, it can be argued that they have a stronger stake in the future of Hong Kong.
Support of entries is reported in the order based on the percentage who rated them as Excellent, which is often, but not always the same order if based on the percentage who rated them either as Excellent or Good. If the order is different, the different order is noted in the text.
Demographic breakdowns are provided for the Overall assessment if there is any difference in the ordering of the entries between the different demographic groups.
Some percentages in the figures may not add up to the total or 100% because of rounding.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 15
2.4 Results of Feedback Questionnaire
2.4.1 Assessment of the Entries
2.4.1.1 Overall
Figure 2.1a Overall degree of support for each entry among adults Base Entry A 18.7% 33.2% 32.1% 11.0% 5.0% (2,237)
Entry B 10.0% 38.4% 38.8% 9.3% 3.5% (2,225)
Entry C 20.5% 38.8% 32.2% 6.1% 2.5% (2,257)
Entry D 8.8% 28.2% 45.3% 12.5% 5.3% (2,212)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
Figure 2.1b Overall degree of support for each entry among adolescents Base Entry A 16.6% 45.3% 30.4% 6.3% 1.4% (1,569)
Entry B 11.6% 41.7% 39.1% 6.5% 1.1% (1,535)
Entry C 14.2% 41.8% 35.9% 7.3% 0.8% (1,536)
Entry D 19.5% 45.0% 29.5% 4.8% 1.2% (1,532)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
As can be seen from Figures 2.1a and 2.1b, adults and adolescents assessed the four entries differently overall. For adults, Entry C had the most support (20.5% E, 59.3% G/E), followed by Entry A (18.7% E, 51.9% G/E), Entry B (10.0% E, 48.4% G/E) and Entry D (8.8% E, 36.9% G/E). For adolescents, Entry D has the most support (19.5% rated Excellent, 64.5% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (16.6% E, 61.9% G/E), Entry C (14.2% E, 56.0% G/E) and Entry B (11.6% E, 53.3% G/E). Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 16
Figure 2.1c Overall degree of support for each entry among adults aged 18-49
Base Entry A 18.3% 34.2% 31.7% 11.0% 4.8% (1,772)
Entry B 9.5% 39.0% 38.6% 9.5% 3.4% (1,770)
Entry C 20.3% 38.8% 32.7% 6.1% 2.2% (1,782)
Entry D 7.3% 27.8% 46.4% 13.1% 5.5% (1,751)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
Figure 2.1d Overall degree of support for each entry among adults aged 50 or above
Base Entry A 15.6% 29.1% 36.2% 12.4% 6.7% (888)
Entry B 10.8% 37.1% 42.1% 6.1% 4.0% (885)
Entry C 18.9% 43.9% 28.4% 5.4% 3.4% (902)
Entry D 13.5% 32.6% 39.2% 10.1% 4.5% (880)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
As can be seen from Figures 2.1c and 2.1d, younger and older adults assessed the four entries slightly differently overall. For younger adults, Entry C has the most support (20.3% rated Excellent, 59.1% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (18.3% E, 52.5% G/E), Entry B (9.5% E, 48.5% G/E) and Entry D (7.3% E, 35.1% G/E). For older adults, Entry C had the most support (18.9% E, 62.8% G/E), followed by Entry A (15.6% E, 44.7% G/E), Entry D (13.5% E, 46.1% G/E) and Entry B (10.8% E, 47.9% G/E), (C/B/D/A based on G/E).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 17
Figure 2.1e Overall degree of support for each entry among adults with Secondary education or below
Base Entry A 12.6% 36.7% 36.4% 10.6% 3.8% (341)
Entry B 11.0% 36.6% 40.1% 8.4% 4.0% (347)
Entry C 17.8% 42.1% 31.5% 5.7% 2.9% (349)
Entry D 11.2% 35.8% 40.1% 8.9% 4.0% (349)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
Figure 2.1f Overall degree of support for each entry among adults with Tertiary education or above
Base Entry A 18.7% 33.0% 31.5% 11.3% 5.5% (1671)
Entry B 9.4% 39.1% 38.5% 9.5% 3.5% (1659)
Entry C 20.6% 38.1% 32.7% 6.1% 2.4% (1687)
Entry D 7.5% 26.9% 46.5% 13.4% 5.7% (1649)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
As can be seen from Figures 2.1e and 2.1f, adults with lower and higher levels of education assessed the four entries slightly differently overall. For adults with secondary education or below, Entry C has the most support (17.8% rated Excellent, 59.9% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (12.6% E, 49.3% G/E), Entry D (11.2% E, 47.0% G/E) and Entry B (11.0% E, 47.6% G/E) (C/A/B/D based on G/E). For adults with tertiary education or above, Entry C had the most support (20.6% E, 58.7% G/E), followed by Entry A (18.7% E, 51.7% G/E), Entry B (9.4% E, 48.5% G/E) and Entry D (7.5% E, 34.4% G/E).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 18
Figure 2.1g Overall degree of support for each entry among Male adolescents Base Entry A 15.2% 42.6% 32.4% 7.8% 2.1% (871)
Entry B 12.1% 43.4% 36.1% 6.9% 1.5% (858)
Entry C 13.5% 38.9% 36.9% 9.4% 1.3% (853)
Entry D 19.1% 42.4% 30.8% 6.1% 1.6% (854)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
Figure 2.1h Overall degree of support for each entry among Female adolescents Base Entry A 19.0% 49.1% 27.8% 3.9% 0.3% (648)
Entry B 10.8% 38.9% 43.7% 6.0% 0.6% (630)
Entry C 15.0% 45.5% 34.5% 4.7% 0.3% (635)
Entry D 20.3% 47.4% 28.5% 3.2% 0.6% (629)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
As can be seen from Figures 2.1g and 2.1h, male and female adolescents assessed the four entries slightly differently overall. For male adolescents, Entry D has the most support (19.1% rated Excellent, 61.5% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (15.2% E, 57.8% G/E), Entry C (13.5% E, 52.4% G/E) and Entry B (12.1% E, 55.5% G/E) (D/A/B/C based on G/E). For female adolescents, Entry D had the most support (20.3% E, 67.7% G/E), followed by Entry A (19.0% E, 68.1% G/E), Entry C (15.0% E, 60.5% G/E) and Entry B (10.8% E, 49.7% G/E) (A/D/C/B based on G/E).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 19
2.4.1.2 Identity
Figure 2.2a Degree of support for each entry on identity among adults
Base Entry A 27.5% 34.6% 25.0% 7.9% 5.0% (2,308)
Entry B 17.1% 38.9% 32.7% 8.4% 2.9% (2,285)
Entry C 24.2% 40.7% 26.8% 5.9% 2.5% (2,320)
Entry D 10.3% 30.6% 41.1% 12.4% 5.6% (2,271)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
Figure 2.2b Degree of support for each entry on identity among adolescents Base Entry A 26.8% 45.0% 22.4% 4.4% 1.3% (1,580)
Entry B 18.6% 39.9% 34.2% 6.1% 1.1% (1,566)
Entry C 17.3% 40.8% 34.8% 6.0% 1.2% (1,566)
Entry D 25.2% 41.7% 27.7% 4.3% 1.2% (1,566)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
As can be seen from Figures 2.2a and 2.2b, adults and adolescents assessed the four entries differently on identity. For adults, Entry A had the most support (27.5% E, 62.1% G/E), followed by Entry C (24.2% E, 64.9% G/E), Entry B (17.1% E, 55.9% G/E) and Entry D (10.3% E, 40.9% G/E) (order is C/A/B/D based on G/E). For adolescents, Entry A has the most support (26.8% rated Excellent, 71.8% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry D (25.2% E, 66.9% G/E), Entry B (18.6% E, 58.6% G/E) and Entry C (17.3% E, 58.1% G/E).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 20
2.4.1.3 Creativity
Figure 2.3a Degree of support for each entry on creativity among adults
Base Entry A 34.6% 31.4% 21.1% 8.2% 4.7% (2,304)
Entry B 14.4% 36.4% 35.6% 9.8% 3.8% (2,278)
Entry C 24.8% 37.0% 29.1% 6.7% 2.4% (2,308)
Entry D 10.1% 27.2% 40.7% 16.0% 6.0% (2,264)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
Figure 2.3b Degree of support for each entry on creativity among adolescents Base Entry A 41.6% 36.3% 17.6% 3.1% 1.3% (1,588)
Entry B 18.2% 37.4% 35.3% 7.7% 1.5% (1,568)
Entry C 17.6% 36.9% 35.3% 8.3% 1.8% (1,560)
Entry D 24.4% 40.4% 27.5% 6.3% 1.4% (1,566)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
As can be seen from Figures 2.3a and 2.3b, adults and adolescents assessed the four entries differently on creativity. For adults, Entry A had the most support (34.6% E, 66.0% G/E), followed by Entry C (24.8% E, 61.8% G/E), Entry B (14.4% E, 50.8% G/E) and Entry D (10.1% E, 37.3% G/E). For adolescents, Entry A has the most support (41.6% rated Excellent, 78.0% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry D (24.4% E, 64.8% G/E), Entry B (18.2% E, 55.6% G/E) and Entry C (17.6% E, 54.6% G/E).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 21
2.4.1.4 Neighbourhood synergy
Figure 2.4a Degree of support for each entry on neighbourhood synergy among adults
Base Entry A 19.9% 28.2% 32.7% 12.7% 6.5% (2,269)
Entry B 9.9% 33.0% 40.2% 11.9% 5.0% (2,252)
Entry C 17.0% 36.5% 34.6% 8.9% 3.0% (2,288)
Entry D 10.7% 31.0% 40.8% 12.3% 5.2% (2,252)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
Figure 2.4b Degree of support for each entry on neighbourhood synergy among adolescents Base Entry A 16.6% 35.8% 35.6% 9.3% 2.7% (1,543)
Entry B 11.4% 36.5% 39.5% 10.6% 2.0% (1,528)
Entry C 13.2% 39.9% 35.6% 9.7% 1.6% (1,521)
Entry D 17.9% 39.9% 33.4% 7.3% 1.5% (1,532)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
As can be seen from Figures 2.4a and 2.4b, adults and adolescents assessed the four entries differently on neighbourhood synergy. For adults, Entry A had the most support (19.9% E, 48.0% G/E), followed by Entry C (17.0% E, 53.5% G/E), Entry D (10.7% E, 41.7% G/E) and Entry B (9.9% E, 42.9% G/E) (order is C/A/B/D based on G/E).For adolescents, Entry D has the most support (17.9% rated Excellent, 57.8% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (16.6% E, 52.4% G/E), Entry C (13.2% E, 53.1% G/E) and Entry B (11.4% E, 47.9% G/E) (order is D/C/A/B based on G/E).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 22
2.4.1.5 Sustainability
Figure 2.5a Degree of support for each entry on sustainability among adults
Base Entry A 15.4% 26.5% 34.0% 14.7% 9.4% (2,259)
Entry B 11.5% 38.0% 36.0% 10.1% 4.3% (2,242)
Entry C 22.4% 39.9% 27.0% 7.3% 3.3% (2,273)
Entry D 10.8% 33.0% 40.7% 10.3% 5.2% (2,231)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
Figure 2.5b Degree of support for each entry on sustainability among adolescents Base Entry A 13.7% 31.3% 37.1% 13.6% 4.3% (1,549)
Entry B 15.7% 43.7% 32.0% 6.6% 2.1% (1,536)
Entry C 24.0% 42.2% 26.3% 6.5% 1.0% (1,527)
Entry D 21.1% 40.4% 31.0% 5.8% 1.7% (1,541)
Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)
As can be seen from Figures 2.5a and 2.5b, adults and adolescents assessed the four entries differently on sustainability. For adults, Entry C had the most support (22.4% E, 62.4% G/E), followed by Entry A (15.4% E, 41.9% G/E), Entry B (11.5% E, 49.6% G/E) and Entry D (10.8% E, 43.8% G/E) (order is C/B/D/A based on G/E). For adolescents, Entry C has the most support (24.0% rated Excellent, 66.2% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry D (21.1% E, 61.5% G/E), Entry B (15.7% E, 59.4% G/E) and Entry A (13.7% E, 45.0% G/E).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 23
2.4.2 Preference for the Key Ideas of the Entries
2.4.2.1 Entry A
Figure 2.6a The favourite idea of Entry A among adults
Easy configuration with 51.9% modular systems
Seamless modern and 30.8% tradition integration
Coast-effective and 17.3% partical construction
(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 2,237)
Figure 2.6b The favourite idea of Entry A among adolescents
Easy configuration with 51.9% modular systems
Seamless modern and tradition 26.3% integration
Coast-effective and partical 21.8% construction
(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 1,431)
For Entry A, both adults and adolescents preferred “Easy configuration with modular systems” (51.9% for both groups).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 24
2.4.2.2 Entry B
Figure 2.7a The favourite idea of Entry B among adults
Eco-Terrace Regenerates the 38.9% Environment
Reconnect to the Mother 35.8% Nature
Formula E Evolves the 25.3% Future
(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 2,225)
Figure 2.7b The favourite idea of Entry B among adolescents
Reconnect to the Mother 44.7% Nature
Eco-Terrace Regenerates the 28.8% Environment
Formula E Evolves the Future 26.6%
(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 1,352)
For Entry B, adults preferred “Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment” (38.9%), while adolescents preferred “Reconnect to Mother Nature” (44.7%).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 25
2.4.2.3 Entry C
Figure 2.8a The favourite idea of Entry C among adults
Natural ecology 44.1%
Healthy city 42.8%
Diverse enterprise 13.2%
(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 2,045)
Figure 2.8b The favourite idea of Entry C among adolescents
Healthy city 40.4%
Natural ecology 39.1%
Diverse enterprise 20.5%
(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 1,387)
For Entry C, almost equal proportions of both adults and adolescents chose “Healthy city” (42.8% for adults, 40.4% for adolescents), and “Natural ecology” (44.1% for adults and 39.1% for adolescents ).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 26
2.4.2.4 Entry D
Figure 2.9a The favourite idea of Entry D among adults
Meaningfully Engage local 42.2% authentic Culture
A Constantly evolving 32.1% Flexible Space
Experience and reconnect 25.8% with nature
(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 1,684)
Figure 2.9b The favourite idea of Entry D among adolescents
Meaningfully Engage local 46.6% authentic Culture
A Constantly evolving Flexible 33.6% Space
Experience and reconnect with 19.8% nature
(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 1,366)
For Entry D, both adults and adolescents preferred “Meaningfully engage with local authentic culture” (42.2% for adults, 46.6%for adolescents).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 27
2.4.3 Demographic Information
2.4.3.1 Gender
Figure 2.10a Gender distribution among adults
Male 56.2% Female 43.8%
(Base: All adult respondents excluding missing data = 2,234)
Figure 2.10b Gender distribution among adolescents
Male Female 58.3% 41.7%
(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding missing data = 1,573)
There were more male than female respondents amongst both adults and adolescents.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 28
2.4.3.2 Age
Figure 2.11 Age distribution among adults
18-49 84.5% 50 or above 15.5%
(Base: All adult respondents excluding missing data = 2,238)
Most of the adult respondents were aged less than 50 years.
2.4.3.3 Education Level
Figure 2.12 Education level among adults
Primary or below 0.7%
Tertiary or above Secondary 82.1% 17.2%
(Base: All adult respondents excluding missing data = 2,192)
The majority of adult respondents had tertiary education.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 29
2.4.3.4 Living District in Hong Kong
Figure 2.13a The living district among Hong Kong resident adults
Eastern Hong Kong Island 11.6% Kwun Tong 9.7% Central and Western Hong Kong Island 9.6% Sha Tin 8.4% Kowloon City 8.0% Sai Kung 7.1% Kwai Tsing 4.9% Sham Shui Po 4.7% Wong Tai Sin 4.4% Yuen Long 4.3% Yau Tsim Mong 4.2% Tuen Mun 4.1% Southern Hong Kong Island 4.0% Tsuen Wan 3.9% Wan Chai 3.5% North New Territories 3.1% Tai Po 3.0% Islands 1.5%
(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Living outside Hong Kong” and missing data = 2,010)
Respondents from Kwun Tong District were 9.7% of the adult Hong Kong residents who responded.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 30
Figure 2.13b The living district among Hong Kong resident adolescents
Kwun Tong 18.6% Central and Western Hong Kong Island 8.9% Eastern Hong Kong Island 8.2% Yuen Long 8.2% Sham Shui Po 8.1% Kowloon City 7.1% Southern Hong Kong Island 6.3% Kwai Tsing 5.6% Yau Tsim Mong 5.6% Sai Kung 4.3% Wong Tai Sin 4.1% Sha Tin 3.8% Tai Po 2.7% Tsuen Wan 2.6% Wan Chai 2.0% Islands 1.4% North New Territories 1.4% Tuen Mun 1.0%
(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Living outside Hong Kong” and missing data = 1,459)
Respondents from Kwun Tong District were 18.6% of the adolescent Hong Kong residents who responded.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 31
2.4.3.5 Living outside Hong Kong
Figure 2.14a Living location among non-Hong Kong resident adults
Living elsewhere Mainland China 52.1% 47.9%
(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Living in Hong Kong” and missing data = 242)
Figure 2.14b Living location among non-Hong Kong resident adolescents
Living elsewhere Mainland China 80.9% 19.1%
(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Living in Hong Kong” and missing data = 94)
Nearly half (47.9%) of the adult respondents from outside Hong Kong were living in the Mainland, while around one fifth (19.1%) of adolescent respondents from outside Hong Kong were living in the Mainland.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 32
2.4.3.6 Whether All Shortlisted Entries were Reviewed
Figure 2.15a Review of all shortlisted entries among adults
Both website and exhibitions 38.1%
Either website or exhibitions 48.0%
Neither website nor 14.0% exhibitions
(Base: All adult respondents = 2,469)
Figure 2.15b Review of all shortlisted entries among adolescents
Both website and exhibitions 7.6%
Either website or exhibitions 18.7%
Neither website nor 73.7% exhibitions
(Base: All adolescent respondents = 1,625)
The majority (86%) of adult respondents had either visited the website or an exhibition to review all the shortlisted entries. Only 26.3% of the adolescent respondents had done this, but most adolescents had the benefit of a presentation of the panels and all the videos in their classroom.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 33
Chapter Three Results of the Qualitative Analysis
3.1 Introduction
The qualitative analysis used the nVivo software and is based on a framework in Annex B that was developed by the HKUSSRC to reflect all the issues covered in the consultation document and then extended to cover all the other issues raised in the qualitative materials collected during the consultation.
A table of counts for comments received on each issue is provided for each section in this chapter, broken down by the six channels noted above. Comments submitted by different people are counted each time, even if the comments were identical, regardless of the channel of submission, on the grounds that this reflects the number of people or organizations who wish to make that specific comment. As individual identities were not cross-referenced across channels, comments submitted through multiple channels are counted separately through each channel, unless they could be matched because of identical content, in which case they were only included once under a single channel. All counts are comment-based, where a comment is defined as a specific idea that could be coded as a distinct issue.
Discussion is provided for any issue with at least 30 comments provided for topics not related to a specific entry or at least 20 comments for a topic related to a specific entry, including a quote from a typical comment submitted and also, where appropriate, the numbers of comments that agree and disagree are highlighted, even if the number of comments is less than the cutoff. The discussion starts by listing issues with counts above the cutoff at the highest level of analysis then breaks down the analysis at the next level of analysis until there are no issues with counts above the cutoff. The quotes are provided at the lowest level of analysis with a count above the cutoff to ensure that the quotes are as specific as possible to the issue.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 34
3.2 Feedback Channels
The 7,158 comments received through the above engagement activities were classified into the following six channels:
Adolescent questionnaires (AO): 2,936 comments Adult questionnaires (AD): 3,967 comments Written Submissions (WS): 124 comments Events (EV): 53 comments Printed Media and Web News (MW): 14 comments Online Forum and Social Media (OS): 64 comments
3.3 Feedback on ‘What the Jury Should Consider’
Table 3.1 shows the breakdown of the 2,983 comments about ‘What the jury should Consider’ by channel.
Table 3.1 Feedback on ‘What the Jury Should Consider’ by Channel Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.2. Feedback on What the Jury Should Consider (if not commenting on specific entries) 1368 1539 42 21 7 6 2983 A.2.1. Criteria in Assessment Guideline 702 659 1 5 3 1 1371 A.2.1.1. A) Branding and Image 19 31 0 1 1 0 52 A.2.1.1.1. The design should be iconic or includes iconic structure 5 15 0 1 1 0 22 A.2.1.1.2. The design should promote the brand and image of Hong Kong 5 10 0 0 0 0 15 A.2.1.1.3. The design should be able to draw people's attention 9 6 0 0 0 0 15 A.2.1.2. B) Innovation and Creativity 69 52 0 0 0 0 121 A.2.1.2.1 The design should be innovative and creative 69 52 0 0 0 0 121 A.2.1.3. C) Originality and Identity in place making 20 32 0 0 0 0 52 A.2.1.3.1. The design should make Kai Tak a place with originality and identity 20 32 0 0 0 0 52 A.2.1.4. D) Harmonize and Synergize with the Neighbourhood 35 56 0 2 1 1 95 A.2.1.4.1. The design should integrate into and connect to the neighbourhood to achieve harmonization 29 37 0 1 0 0 67 A.2.1.4.2. The design should create synergy effect in the area development 6 19 0 1 1 1 28 A.2.1.5. E) Sustainability and Green Design (including Safety and Health Life Style) 306 336 1 1 1 0 645 A.2.1.5.1. The design should be green and sustainable 287 272 0 1 0 0 560 A.2.1.5.2. The design should address the water quality problem 7 26 1 0 1 0 35
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 35
Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.2.1.5.3. The design should cope with other safety issues 6 21 0 0 0 0 27 A.2.1.5.3.1 The design should consider the effect of weather on green and safety design 4 17 0 0 0 0 21 A.2.1.5.3.2 The design should cope with other safety issues 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 A.2.1.5.4. The design should promote healthy life style 5 14 0 0 0 0 19 A.2.1.5.5. The design should propose an adequate sewage and waste management design 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 A.2.1.6. F) Feasibility in implementation 162 79 0 1 0 0 242 A.2.1.6.1 The design should be feasible and implementable 130 53 0 1 0 0 184 A.2.1.6.2. The design should be practical 31 19 0 0 0 0 50 A.2.1.6.3. The design should consider the maintenance issues 1 7 0 0 0 0 8 A.2.1.7. G) Cost Effectiveness 91 73 0 0 0 0 164 A.2.1.7.1. The Jury should consider the cost-effectiveness of the design (e.g. construction and maintenance costs) 91 73 0 0 0 0 164 A.2.2. Technical Aspects and Design Considerations 585 742 26 10 3 4 1370 A.2.2.01. Urban Planning and Design 292 329 2 2 0 0 625 A.2.2.1.01. The Jury should consider urban planning, design and use of space 193 100 0 0 0 0 293 A.2.2.1.02. The design should have less commercial development 14 59 1 0 0 0 74 A.2.2.1.03. The design should include space for sports, leisure and relaxation 13 52 0 2 0 0 67 A.2.2.1.04. The design should include more public space 8 43 1 0 0 0 52 A.2.2.1.05. The design should consider diversity 29 10 0 0 0 0 39 A.2.2.1.06. The design should include places for arts development 10 13 0 0 0 0 23 A.2.2.1.07. The design should consider the capacities to handle a large amount of visitors 9 8 0 0 0 0 17 A.2.2.1.08. The design should include places for commercial development 5 7 0 0 0 0 12 A.2.2.1.09. The design should consider density of buildings 4 6 0 0 0 0 10 A.2.2.1.10. The design should include places for residential development 1 6 0 0 0 0 7 A.2.2.1.11. The design should include places for communal facilities and activities 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 A.2.2.1.12. The design should have less green zone 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.2.2.1.13. The design should include adequate sanitary facilities 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.2.2.1.14. The design should include adequate medical facilities 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.1.15. The design should focus on a specific theme 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.1.16. The design should include enough parking area 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.1.17. The design should consider adequate signage system 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.1.18. Other comments concerning urban planning and design 6 13 0 0 0 0 19 A.2.2.04. Connectivity 34 84 2 1 0 3 124 A.2.2.4.1. The design should consider the connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general 24 36 1 1 0 0 62 A.2.2.4.2. The design should include cycle track 4 14 0 0 0 2 20 Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 36
Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.2.2.4.2. The design should consider pedestrian access 2 8 0 0 0 0 10 A.2.2.4.3. Considerations Towards EFLS (monorail) 2 16 1 0 0 0 19 A.2.2.4.3.1. The design should include monorail 2 7 0 0 0 0 9 A.2.2.4.3.2. The design should not rely on light rail for transport 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.2.2.4.3.3. The design should not include light rail 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 A.2.2.4.3.4. Other comments towards light rail 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 A.2.2.4.4. The design should consider land transport connection 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 A.2.2.4.5. The design should consider water transport connection 0 4 0 0 0 1 5 A.2.2.4.6. The design should consider connection to current mass transit systems 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.2.2.02. Architecture 70 46 0 0 0 0 116 A.2.2.2.1. The Jury should consider the architecture aspect of the design in general 30 15 0 0 0 0 45 A.2.2.2.2. The forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character of the architectural design should be considered 21 15 0 0 0 0 36 A.2.2.2.3. The function and use of space of the architectural design should be considered 7 8 0 0 0 0 15 A.2.2.2.4. The feasibility of the architectural design should be considered 9 2 0 0 0 0 11 A.2.2.2.5. The building materials used in the architectural design should be considered 3 5 0 0 0 0 8 A.2.2.2.6. The effect of weather to the architecture should be considered 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.03. Place-making Strategies 41 58 0 1 1 0 101 A.2.2.3.1. The design should propose an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors 31 38 0 1 1 0 71 A.2.2.3.2. The design should have a right combination of commercial activities for drawing visitors 7 12 0 0 0 0 19 A.2.2.3.3. Other comments on place-making strategies 3 8 0 0 0 0 11 A.2.2.05. Showcase of Local Culture and Heritage 27 42 0 0 1 0 70 A.2.2.5.1. Display of the culture and heritage of the city 27 32 0 0 1 0 60 A.2.2.5.2. Display of old Kai Tak airport heritage 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 A.2.2.06. Landscape Architecture 24 45 0 0 1 0 70 A.2.2.6.1. The Jury should consider the landscape architecture of the design in general 24 38 0 0 0 0 62 A.2.2.6.2. Right types of landscaping plants should be used 0 4 0 0 1 0 5 A.2.2.6.3. The effect of weather on landscape architecture should be considered 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.6.4. The landscape design should include a larger area of plantation zone 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.6.5. The landscape design should include a right theme 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.07. Engineering 42 25 0 0 0 0 67 A.2.2.7.1. The Jury should consider engineering issues of the design in general 35 13 0 0 0 0 48 A.2.2.7.2. The pollution made to the surrounding environment during the construction should be considered 5 3 0 0 0 0 8 A.2.2.7.3. The effect of weather on engineering should be 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 37
Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
considered A.2.2.7.4. The construction should not affect the existing underground utilities (e.g. dung channel) 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.7.5. Other engineering issues 2 5 0 0 0 0 7 A.2.2.08. Providing Suitable Water-based Activities in the Water Body 5 42 11 3 0 1 62 A.2.2.8.1. Facilities for water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.) should be provided in the water body 1 14 7 3 0 0 25 A.2.2.8.2. Facilities and moorings for recreational boating should be provided in the water body 0 17 4 0 0 0 21 A.2.2.8.3. The design should propose suitable water-based activities in general 2 7 0 0 0 0 9 A.2.2.8.4. Other comments on providing suitable water-based activities 2 2 0 0 0 1 5 A.2.2.8.5. The water body should not be used for moorings of large boats 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.2.2.09. Flexible Design 13 13 0 1 0 0 27 A.2.2.9.1. The design should be flexible for holding urban city events or future use 13 13 0 1 0 0 27 A.2.2.10. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and Reclamation issues 2 14 5 1 0 0 22 A.2.2.10.1. No reclamation in the KTF site OR the PHO should be observed 1 13 5 1 0 0 20 A.2.2.10.2. More reclamation can be considered 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.10.3. The scale of reclamation should be concerned 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.2.11. Construction Phasing Plan 18 10 0 0 0 0 28 A.2.2.11.1. The timeframe of construction should be considered 18 7 0 0 0 0 25 A.2.2.11.1. Proper phasing of construction should be considered 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.2.2.12. Surveying 16 5 0 0 0 0 21 A.2.2.12.1. The Jury should consider survey aspect in general 13 3 0 0 0 0 16 A.2.2.12.2. The floor area being used should be considered 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 A.2.2.13. Water Body Functioning as Typhoon Shelter 1 9 6 1 0 0 17 A.2.2.13.1. The water body should retain the function as typhoon shelter (for working or recreational boats) 1 7 4 1 0 0 13 A.2.2.13.2. Height for monorail bridge should be large enough for boat passing 0 2 2 0 0 0 4 A.2.2.14. Water-land Interface 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 A.2.2.14.1. The design should include adequate water-land interface 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 A.2.2.15. Unobstructed Views to the Surrounding Areas 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 A.2.2.15.1. The views to the surrounding areas should not be obstructed 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 A.2.3. Specific Area Within Kai Tak Fantasy 9 73 15 6 0 1 104 A.2.3.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 A.2.3.1.1. As a whole 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.2.3.1.5. Runway waterfront promenade 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 A.2.3.2. Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 A.2.3.2.1. As a whole 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 38
Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.2.3.2.2. Three existing piers 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 A.2.3.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody) 9 68 14 5 0 1 97 A.2.3.3.1. As a whole 7 52 6 4 0 1 70 A.2.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter 2 15 8 1 0 0 26 A.2.3.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.4. Other Miscellaneous Comments 72 65 0 0 1 0 138 A.2.4.01. The design should meet the needs of people 21 22 0 0 0 0 43 A.2.4.02. The design should look good 13 5 0 0 0 0 18 A.2.4.03. The design should consider all aspects 6 4 0 0 0 0 10 A.2.4.04. The design should facilitate economic development 7 2 0 0 0 0 9 A.2.4.05. The ideas of different entries can be combined 5 4 0 0 0 0 9 A.2.4.06. The design should facilitate tourism 4 1 0 0 1 0 6 A.2.4.07. The design should look modern 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 A.2.4.08. The Jury should consider example of waterfront development in other cities 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 A.2.4.09. The design should improve people's life 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 A.2.4.10. The design should be interactive 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 A.2.4.11. The design should bring vibrancy 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 A.2.4.12. The design should consider the influence to neighbourhood during construction 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 A.2.4.13. The design can refer to similar projects in other cities 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 A.2.4.14. The design should consider number of people who will use the facilities 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 A.2.4.15. The design should not target mainlanders 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 A.2.4.16. The design should consider programming design 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.4.17. The design should consider population issues 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.4.18. The design should be systematic 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.4.19. The design should be user-friendly 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.4.20. Whether the design resemble other existing designs 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.2.4.21. The design should comply with relevant ordinances and requirements 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Note: Bolded if Total Count is at least 30
Of the 2,983 comments about ‘What the jury should consider’ , 1,371 were about the assessment criteria, 1,370 were about the technical aspects and design considerations, 104 were about specific areas within KTF and there were 138 other miscellaneous comments.
Of the 1,371 comments about the assessment criteria, 645 were about sustainability and green design (including 560 about the need for this (“Eco-friendly, less pollution”) and 35 about the need to address water quality (“The water treatment before flowing into the harbour is important”), 242 about feasibility in implementation (including 184 about the need for a feasible implementation (“It must be plausible”) and 50 about the need to be practical (“(The design) should be practical”)), 164 about need for cost Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 39
effectiveness (“Cost effectiveness of the whole project is important”), 121 about the need for innovation and creativity (“Creativity is a very important factor in the project”), 95 were about harmonize and synergize with the neighbourhood (including 67 about the need for this (“Connection to the neighbouring community is very important”), 52 about branding and image (“(The Jury should consider) an iconic structure for the future look of HK as a smart city”) and 52 about the need for originality and identity in place-making (“To make Kai Tak unique, it needs something that is unconventional and unique”).
Of the 1,370 comments about the technical and design considerations, 625 were about urban planning and design (including 293 about the need (“I believe that the redevelopment must be looked at from a long term perspective, especially with the planning”), 74 about having less commercial development (“The last thing I would like to see is to turn it into another commercial area where Hong Kong already have plenty”), 67 about more space for sports, leisure and relaxation (“It should be an attractive place for public to relax in leisure time”), 52 about more public space (“Please create a public space for the people who live here”) and 39 about the need for diversity(“The city design should consider diversity”)), 124 about connectivity (including 62 about the need to consider connectivity, traffic and accessibility (“think of accessibility”), 116 about architecture (including 45 about the need (“(The jury should consider the) architecture”) and 36 about the need to consider the appearance, perspective and character of the architectural design(“(The jury should consider) the appearance and style of the building”)), 101 about place-making strategies (including 71 about the need for a theme, events and facilities to attract visitors (“It is better to have a night market with small stalls to attract people to visit”), 70 about showcasing local culture and heritage (including 60 about display of the culture and heritage of the city (“We need to bring in elements of the historical past of the area - old buildings, relics, the old stone bridge, the original/first settlers in the area to give the place its character”), 70 about landscape architecture (including 62 about the need to consider this (“The jury should consider more the landscape architecture”), 67 about engineering (including 48 about the need to consider this (“(the jury should consider the) engineering”)) and 62 about providing suitable water-based activities in the water body (“The water body should have huge free space for all kinds of water sports activities”).
Of the 104 comments about specific areas, 97 were about the closed waterbody, including 70 about the waterbody as a whole (“Make good use of the unoccupied water body”).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 40
Of the 138 miscellaneous comments, 43 were about the meeting the needs of the people (“(The design should) fulfill the needs of people from different social classes”)).
3.4 Feedback on the Individual Entries
Table 3.2 shows the breakdown of the 2,682 comments on individual entries by entry.
Table 3.2 Feedback on the Individual Entries by Entries Divided by Entries
Node Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*
A.3. Feedback on Individual Entries (specified by C.1) 889 576 687 530 2682 A.3.1. Criteria in Assessment Guideline 451 306 369 249 1375 A.3.1.1. A) Branding and Image 19 21 9 18 67 A.3.1.1.1. Positive Comments 12 17 5 12 46 A.3.1.1.1.1. The design is iconic or includes iconic structure 6 10 1 5 22 A.3.1.1.1.2. The design promotes the brand and image of Hong Kong 3 2 2 4 11 A.3.1.1.1.3. The design draws people's attention 3 5 2 3 13 A.3.1.1.2. Negative Comments 7 4 4 6 21 A.3.1.1.2.1. The design is not iconic and does not include any iconic structure 2 0 0 1 3 A.3.1.1.2.2. The design cannot promotes the brand and image of Hong Kong 3 3 2 4 12 A.3.1.1.2.3. The design doesn't draw people's attention 2 1 2 1 6 A.3.1.2. B) Innovation and Creativity 140 79 87 67 373 A.3.1.2.1. Positive Comments 128 61 66 42 297 A.3.1.2.1.1. The design is innovative and creative 128 61 66 42 297 A.3.1.2.2. Negative Comments 12 18 21 25 76 A.3.1.2.2.1. The design is neither innovative nor creative 12 18 21 25 76 A.3.1.3. C) Originality and Identity in place making 42 33 26 35 136 A.3.1.3.1. Positive Comments 35 20 12 12 79 A.3.1.3.1.1. The design makes Kai Tak a place with originality and identity 35 20 12 12 79 A.3.1.3.2. Negative Comments 7 13 14 23 57 A.3.1.3.2.1. The design does not make Kai Tak a place with originality and identity 7 13 14 23 57 A.3.1.4. D) Harmonize and Synergize with the Neighbourhood 24 22 11 16 73 A.3.1.4.1. Positive Comments 15 9 5 8 37 A.3.1.4.1.1. The design integrates into and connects to the neighbourhood to achieve harmonization 10 4 2 3 19 A.3.1.4.1.2. The design creates synergy effect in the area development 5 5 3 5 18 A.3.1.4.2. Negative Comments 9 9 4 7 29 A.3.1.4.2.1. The design neither integrates into nor connects to the neighbourhood to achieve harmonization 4 6 3 6 19 A.3.1.4.2.2. The design does not create synergy effect in the area development 5 3 1 1 10
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 41
Divided by Entries
Node Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*
A.3.1.4.3. Neutral Comments 0 4 2 1 7 A.3.1.4.3.1. The design may consider more on integration and connection to the neighbourhood to achieve harmonization 0 4 1 0 5 A.3.1.4.3.2. The design may consider more on creating synergy effect in the area development 0 0 1 1 2 A.3.1.5. E) Sustainability and Green Design (including Safety and Health Life Style) 102 110 180 63 455 A.3.1.5.1. Positive Comments 53 92 151 51 347 A.3.1.5.1.1. The design is green and sustainable 48 91 143 51 333 A.3.1.5.1.2. The design promotes healthy life style 0 1 5 0 6 A.3.1.5.1.3. The design addresses the water quality problem 3 0 2 0 5 A.3.1.5.1.4. The design can cope with safety issues 2 0 1 0 3 A.3.1.5.1.4.1. The design has considered the effect of weather on green and safety design 0 0 1 0 1 A.3.1.5.1.4.2. The design can cope with other safety issues 2 0 0 0 2 A.3.1.5.2. Negative Comments 28 9 14 9 60 A.3.1.5.2.1. The design is not green and sustainable 13 8 9 8 38 A.3.1.5.2.2. The design does not promote healthy life style 0 0 1 0 1 A.3.1.5.2.3. The design does not address the water quality problem 1 0 1 0 2 A.3.1.5.2.4. The design lacks consideration on safety issues 14 1 3 1 19 A.3.1.5.2.4.1. The design did not consider the effect of weather on green and safety design 10 0 1 0 11 A.3.1.5.2.4.2. The design lacks consideration on safety issues 4 1 2 1 8 A.3.1.5.3. Neutral Comments 21 9 15 3 48 A.3.1.5.3.1. The design may consider more on safety issues 11 1 2 1 15 A.3.1.5.3.1.1. The design may need to consider the effect of weather on green and safety design 6 1 1 0 8 A.3.1.5.3.1.2. The design may consider more on other safety issues 5 0 1 1 7 A.3.1.5.3.2. The design may consider more green and sustainable design 5 7 8 2 22 A.3.1.5.3.3. The design may consider more on the water quality problem 2 0 3 0 5 A.3.1.5.3.4. The design may consider an adequate sewage and waste management design 3 0 1 0 4 A.3.1.5.3.5. Other neutral comments concerning sustainability and green design 0 1 1 0 2 A.3.1.6. F) Feasibility in implementation 100 29 42 39 210 A.3.1.6.1. Positive Comments 17 11 15 18 61 A.3.1.6.1.1. The design is feasible and implementable 11 7 8 9 35 A.3.1.6.1.2. The design is practical 6 4 6 9 25 A.3.1.6.1.3. The design requires less maintenance 0 0 1 0 1 A.3.1.6.2. Negative Comments 67 15 21 19 122 A.3.1.6.2.1. The design is not feasible and implementable 52 10 15 15 92 Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 42
Divided by Entries
Node Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*
A.3.1.6.2.2. The design is not practical 10 3 4 4 21 A.3.1.6.2.3. The design is difficult in maintenance 5 2 2 0 9 A.3.1.6.3. Neutral Comments 16 3 6 2 27 A.3.1.6.3.1. The design may consider more on feasibility in implementation 9 3 5 1 18 A.3.1.6.3.2. The design may consider more on maintenance issues 5 0 1 1 7 A.3.1.6.3.3. The design may consider more on practicality 2 0 0 0 2 A.3.1.7. G) Cost Effectiveness 23 12 14 11 60 A.3.1.7.1. Positive Comments 8 2 6 2 18 A.3.1.7.1.1. The design is cost-effective 8 2 6 2 18 A.3.1.7.2. Negative Comments 11 10 8 9 38 A.3.1.7.2.1. The design is not cost-effective 11 10 8 9 38 A.3.1.7.3. Neutral Comments 4 0 0 0 4 A.3.1.7.3.1. The design may consider more on cost-effectiveness 4 0 0 0 4 A.3.1.8. H) Response to design requirement 1 0 0 0 1 A.3.1.8.1. Positive Comments 1 0 0 0 1 A.3.1.8.1.1. The design meets the design requirements 1 0 0 0 1 A.3.2. Technical Aspects and Design Considerations 342 206 236 214 998 A.3.2.01. Urban Planning and Design 63 43 99 84 289 A.3.2.1.1. Positive Comments 27 15 64 44 150 A.3.2.1.1.01. The design includes adequate places for sports, leisure and relaxation activities 6 2 23 6 37 A.3.2.1.1.02. The design includes adequate public space 8 3 21 2 34 A.3.2.1.1.03. The design creates diversity 6 2 8 24 40 A.3.2.1.1.04. The design shows good urban planning, design and good use of space in general 2 3 3 4 12 A.3.2.1.1.05. The design includes adequate places for commercial development 1 1 2 1 5 A.3.2.1.1.06. The design includes adequate places for arts development 1 1 0 2 4 A.3.2.1.1.07. The design is less commercial 1 0 2 0 3 A.3.2.1.1.08. The design has enough capacities to handle large amount of visitors 0 1 0 0 1 A.3.2.1.1.13. Other positive comments on urban planning and design 2 2 5 5 14 A.3.2.1.2. Negative Comments 34 25 30 38 127 A.3.2.1.2.01. The design lacks places for sports, leisure and relaxation activities 3 0 3 0 6 A.3.2.1.2.02. The design lacks enough public space 3 1 0 1 5 A.3.2.1.2.03. The design lacks diversity 1 1 1 1 4 A.3.2.1.2.04. The design lacks good urban planning, design and good use of space in general 3 1 2 1 7 A.3.2.1.2.05. The design lacks enough places for commercial development 1 0 2 1 4 A.3.2.1.2.06. The design lacks enough places for arts development 1 2 2 1 6 A.3.2.1.2.07. The design is too commercial 10 13 7 24 54 A.3.2.1.2.08. The design does not have enough capacities 1 0 0 0 1 Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 43
Divided by Entries
Node Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*
to handle large amount of visitors A.3.2.1.2.09. The design is loosely organized 5 0 0 1 6 A.3.2.1.2.10. The design includes too much green zone 0 1 3 0 4 A.3.2.1.2.11. The design is too diversified and lacks of focus 1 1 2 1 5 A.3.2.1.2.12. The design lacks residential development 0 1 0 0 1 A.3.2.1.2.13. Other negative comments on urban planning and design 5 4 8 7 24 A.3.2.1.3. Neutral Comments 2 3 5 2 12 A.3.2.1.3.1. The design may include more commercial elements 1 0 1 0 2 A.3.2.1.3.2. The design may include more sports, leisure and relaxation facilities 1 2 1 1 5 A.3.2.1.3.3. The design may need to consider the capacities to handle large amount of visitors 0 1 0 0 1 A.3.2.1.3.4. Other neutral comments on urban planning and design 0 0 3 1 4 A.3.2.03. Place-making Strategies 81 36 42 32 191 A.3.2.3.1. Positive Comments 61 26 34 21 142 A.3.2.3.1.1. The design proposes an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors 57 26 30 19 132 A.3.2.3.1.2. The design includes a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors 4 0 4 2 10 A.3.2.3.2. Negative Comments 14 8 7 8 37 A.3.2.3.2.1. The design lacks an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors 7 5 6 6 24 A.3.2.3.2.2. The design lacks a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors 7 3 1 2 13 A.3.2.3.3. Neutral Comments 6 2 1 3 12 A.3.2.3.3.1. The design may need an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors 3 1 1 3 8 A.3.2.3.3.2. The design may include a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors 3 1 0 0 4 A.3.2.09. Flexible Design 78 7 13 16 114 A.3.2.9.1. Positive Comments 76 5 11 14 106 A.3.2.9.1.1. The design is flexible for holding urban city event or future use 76 5 11 14 106 A.3.2.9.2. Negative Comments 2 2 2 2 8 A.3.2.9.2.1. The design is not flexible for holding urban city event or future use 2 2 2 2 8 A.3.2.02. Architecture 12 50 14 26 102 A.3.2.2.1. Positive Comments 4 32 9 20 65 A.3.2.2.1.1. The architectural design is good in forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character 4 31 9 16 60 A.3.2.2.1.2. The architectural design is good in terms of functionality and use of space 0 1 0 2 3 A.3.2.2.1.3. The architectural design is good in terms of the building materials used 0 0 0 2 2 A.3.2.2.2. Negative Comments 5 13 5 3 26 A.3.2.2.2.1. The architectural design is not good in forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character 3 11 4 3 21 Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 44
Divided by Entries
Node Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*
A.3.2.2.2.2. The architectural design is not good in terms of functionality and use of space 1 2 1 0 4 A.3.2.2.2.3. The architectural design is not good in terms of the building materials used 1 0 0 0 1 A.3.2.2.3. Neutral Comments 3 5 0 3 11 A.3.2.2.3.1. The forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character of the architectural design may need more concerns 2 5 0 3 10 A.3.2.2.3.2. The functionality and use of space of the architectural design may need more concerns 1 0 0 0 1 A.3.2.04. Connectivity 19 18 14 17 68 A.3.2.4.1. Positive Comments 14 7 8 9 38 A.3.2.4.1.1. The design has adequate connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general 8 5 2 5 20 A.3.2.4.1.2. It is good to include cycle track in the design 2 0 3 1 6 A.3.2.4.1.3. It is good to include EFLS (monorail) in the design 0 1 1 3 5 A.3.2.4.1.4. The design has adequate pedestrian access 4 1 0 0 5 A.3.2.4.1.5. The design has adequate land transport connection 0 0 2 0 2 A.3.2.4.2. Negative Comments 3 7 4 5 19 A.3.2.4.2.1. The design does not have adequate connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general 0 1 2 2 5 A.3.2.4.2.3. It is not good to include EFLS (monorail) in the design 0 1 0 2 3 A.3.2.4.2.4. The design does not have adequate pedestrian access 1 3 0 0 4 A.3.2.4.2.5. The design does not have adequate land transport connection 0 1 0 0 1 A.3.2.4.2.6. The design does not have adequate water transport connection 1 0 1 0 2 A.3.2.4.2.7. The design does not have adequate connection to current mass transit system 1 1 1 1 4 A.3.2.4.3. Neutral Comments 2 4 2 3 11 A.3.2.4.3.1. The design may consider more on the connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general 1 1 0 0 2 A.3.2.4.3.2. The design may consider inclusion of a cycle track 1 2 1 1 5 A.3.2.4.3.3. The design may consider inclusion of EFLS (monorail) 0 0 1 0 1 A.3.2.4.3.4. The design may consider more on pedestrian access 0 1 0 0 1 A.3.2.4.3.5. The design may consider more adequate land transport connection 0 0 0 1 1 A.3.2.4.3.6. The design may consider more on water transport connection 0 0 0 1 1 A.3.2.05. Showcase of Local Culture and Heritage 39 9 8 10 66 A.3.2.5.1. Positive Comments 35 3 2 7 47 A.3.2.5.1.1. The design displays the culture and heritage of the city 33 1 2 6 42 A.3.2.5.1.2. The design displays the old Kai Tak airport 2 2 0 1 5
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 45
Divided by Entries
Node Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*
heritage A.3.2.5.2. Negative Comments 2 4 4 3 13 A.3.2.5.2.1. The design does not display the culture and heritage of the city 2 4 3 3 12 A.3.2.5.2.2. The design does not display the old Kai Tak airport heritage 0 0 1 0 1 A.3.2.5.3. Neutral Comments 2 2 2 0 6 A.3.2.5.3.1. The design may display more the culture and heritage of the city 1 1 1 0 3 A.3.2.08. Providing Suitable Water-based Activities in the Water Body 17 11 16 8 52 A.3.2.8.1. Positive Comments 9 0 8 0 17 A.3.2.8.1.1. The design proposes suitable water-based activities in general 7 0 7 0 14 A.3.2.8.1.2. The design proposes adequate water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.) 2 0 1 0 3 A.3.2.8.2. Negative Comments 7 9 7 8 31 A.3.2.8.2.1. The design does not propose suitable water-based activities in general 2 4 2 3 11 A.3.2.8.2.2. The design does not propose adequate water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.) 5 5 5 5 20 A.3.2.8.3. Neutral Comments 1 2 1 0 4 A.3.2.8.3.1. The design may propose more suitable water-based activities in general 1 2 1 0 4 A.3.2.10. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance OR Reclamation issues 9 9 12 5 35 A.3.2.10.1. Positive Comments 2 3 3 2 10 A.3.2.10.1.1. The design does not require reclamation and observe the PHO 2 3 3 2 10 A.3.2.10.2. Negative Comments 7 6 6 3 22 A.3.2.10.2.1. The design requires reclamation or does not observe the PHO 7 6 6 3 22 A.3.2.10.3. Neutral Comments 0 0 3 0 3 A.3.2.10.3.1. The design may require reclamation and may not comply with the PHO 0 0 3 0 3 A.3.2.13. Water Body Functioning as Typhoon Shelter 12 8 6 8 34 A.3.2.13.1. Positive Comments 2 0 0 2 4 A.3.2.13.1.1. The design retain the function of typhoon shelter 2 0 0 2 4 A.3.2.13.2. Negative Comments 9 7 6 6 28 A.3.2.13.2.1. The design block the use of the typhoon shelter 8 5 5 5 23 A.3.2.13.2.2. The headroom of the monorail bridge is not tall enough for ship passage 1 2 1 1 5 A.3.2.13.3. Neutral Comments 1 1 0 0 2 A.3.2.13.3.1. The design may consider retaining the use of the typhoon shelter 1 1 0 0 2 A.3.2.06. Landscape Architecture 3 5 5 2 15 A.3.2.6.1. Positive Comments 2 4 4 1 11 A.3.2.6.1.1. The landscape architecture of the design is good in general 2 4 4 1 11 Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 46
Divided by Entries
Node Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*
A.3.2.6.3. Neutral Comments 1 1 1 1 4 A.3.2.6.3.1. The design may consider more on landscape architecture 1 1 1 1 4 A.3.2.15. Unobstructed Views to the Surrounding Areas 2 5 3 3 13 A.3.2.15.1. Positive Comments 0 3 1 1 5 A.3.2.15.1.1. The design does not obstruct the views to the surrounding 0 3 1 1 5 A.3.2.15.2. Negative Comments 2 2 2 2 8 A.3.2.15.2.1. The design obstructs the views to the surrounding 2 2 2 2 8 A.3.2.14. Water-land Interface 4 2 3 2 11 A.3.2.14.1. Positive Comments 3 1 2 0 6 A.3.2.14.1.1. The design includes adequate water-land interface 3 1 2 0 6 A.3.2.14.2. Negative Comments 1 1 1 2 5 A.3.2.14.2.1. The design does not include adequate water-land interface 1 1 1 2 5 A.3.2.07. Engineering 3 1 0 0 4 A.3.2.7.2. Negative Comments 1 0 0 0 1 A.3.2.7.2.1. The design has engineering issues 1 0 0 0 1 A.3.2.7.3. Neutral Comments 2 1 0 0 3 A.3.2.7.3.1. The design may need to consider more in engineering aspect 2 1 0 0 3 A.3.2.12. Surveying 0 2 1 1 4 A.3.2.12.2. Negative Comments 0 2 1 1 4 A.3.2.12.2.1. The ratio of land being used is too low 0 2 1 1 4 A.3.3. Regarding Specific Area Mentioned by Respondents 63 34 39 35 171 A.3.3.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip 1 0 2 1 4 A.3.3.1.1. As a whole 1 0 2 1 4 A.3.3.1.1.2. Negative Comments 0 0 1 1 2 A.3.3.1.1.3. Neutral Comments 1 0 1 0 2 A.3.3.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody) 62 34 37 34 167 A.3.3.3.1. As a whole 50 27 31 27 135 A.3.3.3.1.1. Positive Comments 32 6 14 8 60 A.3.3.3.1.2. Negative Comments 15 19 15 17 66 A.3.3.3.1.3. Neutral Comments 3 2 2 2 9 A.3.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter 12 7 6 7 32 A.3.3.3.2.1. Positive Comments 3 0 1 2 6 A.3.3.3.2.2. Negative Comments 7 6 5 5 23 A.3.3.3.2.3. Neutral Comments 2 1 0 0 3 A.3.4. Other Miscellaneous Comments 33 30 43 32 138 A.3.4.1. Positive Comments 9 14 14 11 48 A.3.4.1.01. The design looks good 3 10 6 6 25 A.3.4.1.02. The design looks modern 0 2 1 3 6 A.3.4.1.03. The design meets people's needs 3 2 3 1 9 A.3.4.1.05. The design brings vibrancy 2 0 1 0 3 A.3.4.1.07. The design facilitates economic development 1 0 1 0 2 A.3.4.1.08. The design has considered all aspects 0 0 2 0 2
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 47
Divided by Entries
Node Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*
A.3.4.1.09. The design improves life quality of people 0 0 0 1 1 A.3.4.2. Negative Comments 5 1 4 4 14 A.3.4.2.01. The design does not look good 1 0 1 0 2 A.3.4.2.03. The design does not meet people's needs 2 1 1 1 5 A.3.4.2.04. The design looks too exaggerating 1 0 1 1 3 A.3.4.2.05. The design looks too plain 0 0 0 1 1 A.3.4.2.06. The design looks not serious 1 0 0 0 1 A.3.4.2.10. The theme name of the design is not good 0 0 0 1 1 A.3.4.2.11. The design looks too upscale 0 0 1 0 1 A.3.4.3. Neutral Comments 19 15 25 17 76 A.3.4.3.1. The ideas of specific entries can be combined 17 15 24 16 72 A.3.4.3.2. The design resembles specific existing designs 2 0 1 0 3 A.3.4.3.3. The design is in American style 0 0 0 1 1 Bold is used if the Count is at least 20
Of the 2,682 comments on individual entries by entry, 1,375 refer to the assessment criteria, 998 refer to the technical and design considerations, 171 refer to specific areas and 138 were miscellaneous comments.
Of the 1,375 comments relating to the assessment criteria, 455 were about sustainability and green design, 373 about innovation and creativity, 210 about feasibility in implementation, 136 about originality and identity in place-making, 73 about harmony and synergy with the neighbourhood, 67 about branding and image, 60 about cost effectiveness.
Of the 455 comments about sustainability and green design, 347 were positive comments including 333 about the design being green and sustainable, including 143 for Entry C (“Entry C includes the largest green area”), 91 for Entry B (“The extensive use of renewable energy in entry B is appreciated”), 51 for Entry D (“Entry D is unique and can reduce the energy consumption in Hong Kong”) and 48 for Entry A (“environmentally friendly design, operation, sustainability”). There were also 28 negative (“There are too many lights in the design of Entry A which would create serious light pollution”) and 21 neutral comments about Entry A (“the practicality of the floating pots and sustainability remains something to be worked out by the construction experts”).
Of the 373 comments about innovation and creativity, 297 were positive (128 for Entry A (“Like the idea of floating structure! Dynamic, versatile, innovative”), 66 for Entry C (“The idea of floating island is very creative!”), 61 for Entry B (“I find the
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 48
idea of "Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment" very innovative and very environmental-friendly”) and 42 for Entry D (“I like D because the design is innovative”)) and 76 were negative (25 for Entry D (“The design of "Dragon Park" is overused and lacks creativity”) and 21 for Entry C (“average and not creative”)).
Of the 210 comments about feasibility in implementation, 61 were positive and 122 were negative (including 67 about Entry A (including 52 that the design is not feasible (“doubt if it can bear a heavy load and still be easy to move to a different location”)) and 21 about Entry C (“It is too conceptual and difficult to materialize”).
Of the 136 comments about originality and identity in place-making, 79 were positive (35 for Entry A (: “The floating pontoons concept has given a special character to the area”) and 20 for Entry B (“This landmark architecture that gives this area a definition and identity”) ) and 57 were negative (23 for Entry D (“dull and lacks any kind of identity”)).
Of the 73 comments about harmony and synergy with the neighbourhood, 24 were about Entry A (“the best design among all because it also addresses the connection between the new development and the old district area of Kwun Tong”) and 22 about Entry B (“Exhibition B presents the most realistic and connected idea to Kai Tak and larger Kowloon area”).
Of the 67 comments about branding and image, 21 were about Entry B (“Entry B is iconic and resembles the old airport 'taking off' point.”).
Of the 60 comments about cost effectiveness, 23 were about Entry A (“A is the best idea and most cost-effective”).
Of the 998 comments about the technical and design considerations, 289 were about urban planning and design, 191 about place-making strategies, 114 about flexible design, 102 about architecture, 68 about connectivity, 66 about showcase of local culture and heritage and 52 about providing suitable water-based activity.
Of the 289 comments about urban planning and design, 150 were positive comments of which 64 were about Entry C (23 about leaving space for sports, leisure and relaxation (“Entry C is a wonderful entry, as this entry provides a recreational area for the community to enjoying their peaceful time”) and 21 about adequate public space (“It offers more green areas and water frontage dedicated to the public”)), 44 about Entry D (including 24 that it creates diversity (“Entry D is special as it includes
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 49
diverse cultures”)) and 27 about Entry A (“good planning”). Of the 127 negative comments, 38 were about Entry D (24 about being too commercial (“Too commercial and it looks like Macau somehow”)), 34 about Entry A (“just like a typical shopping arcade”), 30 about Entry C (“The design of entry C is too commercial”) and 25 about Entry B (“Just too commercial”).
Of the 191 comments about place-making strategies, 142 were positive, mainly about an adequate theme to attract visitors (of which 61 were about Entry A (“It fills the area with vibrancy”), 34 about Entry C (“render itself into a world-class tourist spot and a popular destination for both resident and sport-lovers”), 26 about Entry B (“The eco-terrace architecture helps to transform the Kai Tak Development Area into a new tourist spot”), 21 about Entry D (“It turns Hong Kong from a cultural desert to a lively place”)) and 37 negative.
Of the 114 comments about flexible design, 106 were positive about being flexible for future events and use (of which 76 were about Entry A (“The system allows configurations that will be invented in the future”)) and 8 were negative.
Of the 102 comments about architecture, 65 were positive (of which 32 were about Entry B (31 about good in terms of appearance, perspective and character (“Entry B is the only one that has a unique architecture form”)) and 20 about Entry D (“I choose the Dragon park as a practical solution, with strong identity, modern appearance”)) and 26 were negative.
Of the 68 comments about connectivity, 38 were positive and 19 were negative.
Of the 66 comments about showcase of local culture and heritage, 47 were positive, of which 35 were about Entry A (33 about displaying the culture and heritage of the city (“It preserves the character of old fishing villages of Hong Kong”) and 13 were negative.
Of the 171 comments about specific areas, 167 referred to the waterbody, of which 135 referred to the whole waterbody, with 60 positive comments (of which 32 were about Entry A (“It seems that only option A makes good use of the area of the typhoon shelter”)) and 66 negative comments.
Of the 138 miscellaneous comments, 72 were about combining ideas of specific entries (24 were about Entry C (“If the ideas of entry B and C can mix together, with local culture from entry A, it will be the best of all worlds”)).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 50
3.5 Feedback on the Key Ideas of the Individual Entries
Table 3.3 shows the 323 comments on the key ideas of the entries broken down by channel.
Table 3.3 Feedback on the Key Ideas of the Individual Entries by Channel Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.4. Feedback on the Key Ideas of Individual Entries 115 207 0 0 0 1 323 A.4.1. Entry A 40 77 0 0 0 0 117 A.4.1.1. Seamless modern and tradition integration 8 26 0 0 0 0 34 A.4.1.1.1. Positive Comments 8 26 0 0 0 0 34 A.4.1.2. Easy configuration with modular systems 28 47 0 0 0 0 75 A.4.1.2.1. Positive Comments 25 38 0 0 0 0 63 A.4.1.2.2. Negative Comments 2 6 0 0 0 0 8 A.4.1.2.3. Neutral Comments 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 A.4.1.3. Cost-effective and practical construction 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 A.4.1.3.1. Positive Comments 3 4 0 0 0 0 7 A.4.1.3.2. Negative Comments 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.4.2. Entry B 31 54 0 0 0 1 86 A.4.2.1. Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment 10 16 0 0 0 0 26 A.4.2.1.1. Positive Comments 10 14 0 0 0 0 24 A.4.2.1.3. Neutral Comments 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.4.2.2. Reconnect to the Mother Nature 16 16 0 0 0 1 33 A.4.2.2.1. Positive Comments 14 14 0 0 0 0 28 A.4.2.2.2. Negative Comments 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 A.4.2.2.3. Neutral Comments 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 A.4.2.3. Formula E Evolves the Future 5 22 0 0 0 0 27 A.4.2.3.1. Positive Comments 3 16 0 0 0 0 19 A.4.2.3.2. Negative Comments 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 A.4.2.3.3. Neutral Comments 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 A.4.3. Entry C 24 57 0 0 0 0 81 A.4.3.1. Diverse enterprises 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 A.4.3.1.1. Positive Comments 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 A.4.3.1.3. Neutral Comments 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.4.3.2. Natural ecology 11 36 0 0 0 0 47 A.4.3.2.1. Positive Comments 10 36 0 0 0 0 46 A.4.3.2.2. Negative Comments 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.4.3.3. Healthy city 11 19 0 0 0 0 30 A.4.3.3.1. Positive Comments 11 18 0 0 0 0 29 A.4.3.3.3. Neutral Comments 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.4.4. Entry D 20 19 0 0 0 0 39 A.4.4.1. A Constantly evolving Flexible Space 1 6 0 0 0 0 7 A.4.4.1.1. Positive Comments 1 6 0 0 0 0 7 A.4.4.2. Meaningfully Engage local authentic Culture 11 8 0 0 0 0 19 A.4.4.2.1. Positive Comments 11 8 0 0 0 0 19 A.4.4.3. Experience and reconnect with nature 8 5 0 0 0 0 13 A.4.4.3.1. Positive Comments 8 5 0 0 0 0 13 Bold is used if the Count is at least 20 Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 51
Of the 323 comments about the key ideas of the entries, 117 were about Entry A, 86 about Entry B, 81 about Entry C and 39 about Entry D.
Among the 117 comments about Entry A, 63 were positive comments about “Easy configuration with modular systems” (It has the most flexibility for creating different kinds of space”) and 34 were positive comments about “Seamless modern and tradition integration” (“It brings in the traditional Hong Kong culture”).
Among the 86 comments about Entry B, 28 were positive comments about “Reconnect to the mother nature” (“My favourite key idea of reconnecting to nother nature because I feel that the world is increasingly aware of global warming”) and 24 were positive comments about “Eco-terrace regenerates the environment” (“I find the idea of "Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment" very innovative and very environmental-friendly”).
Among the 81 comments about Entry C, 46 were positive comments about “Natural ecology” (“My favourite idea is people trying to connect to another nature and bring alertness to the public of dangerous global warming”) and 29 were positive comments about “Healthy city” (“Hongkong needs such a place for nature and health”).
Among the 39 comments about Entry D, the most common was 19 positive comments about “Meaningfully engage local culture”2 (“Tourists would have an enriching experience of the culture on Hong Kong”).
2 This count is below the limit, but is reported as the most commonly responded to key idea for this Entry. Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 52
3.6 Feedback on Place-making or What Should be Built at KTF
Table 3.4 shows the 39 comments on place-making or what should be built at KTF broken down by channel3.
Table 3.4 Feedback on Place-making or what should be Built at KTF Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.5. Respondents' Own Specific Ideas on Place-making OR What Should be Built at KTF 5 29 5 0 0 0 39 A.5.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip 0 4 1 0 0 0 5 A.5.1.3. Runway Park 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 A.5.1.2. Tourism Node 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.5.1.4. Runway Waterfront Promenade 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.5.1.5. Heliport 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.5.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody) 4 3 4 0 0 0 11 A.5.3.1. As a whole 4 2 1 0 0 0 7 A.5.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 A.5.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 A.5.4. Unspecified Area in KTF 1 22 0 0 0 0 23 Bold is used if the Total Count is at least 30
3.7 Feedback on Other Issues
Table 3.5 shows the breakdown of the 29 comments on macro issues by channel.
Table 3.5 Macro Issues by Channel Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.6. Macro Issues 6 19 0 3 0 1 29 A.6.1. Urban Planning of Hong Kong 4 9 0 0 0 1 14 A.6.2. Urban Planning of KTF's Surrounding Areas 2 6 0 1 0 0 9 A.6.3. Hong Kong's Cultural and Policies or Strategies 0 4 0 2 0 0 6 Bold is used if the Total Count is at least 30
3 This count is above the limit, but there is no common theme. Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 53
Table 3.6 shows the breakdown of the 936 comments about the competition and public engagement by channel.
Table 3.6: Competition and Public Engagement by Channel Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.7. Ideas Competition and Public Engagement 483 444 3 3 1 2 936 A.7.1. Ideas Competition 141 100 0 1 0 0 242 A.7.1.1. Competition Arrangement 141 98 0 1 0 0 240 A.7.1.1.1. Positive Comments 112 71 0 0 0 0 183 A.7.1.1.1.1. The competition is meaningful and well-done 102 64 0 0 0 0 166 A.7.1.1.1.2. The competition includes qualified designs 6 3 0 0 0 0 9 A.7.1.1.1.3. The competition allows people to know more about KTF 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 A.7.1.1.2. Negative Comments 20 15 0 0 0 0 35 A.7.1.1.2.2. The competition does not include qualified entries 10 6 0 0 0 0 16 A.7.1.1.2.1. The competition is not well-organized 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.1.1.2.4. The requirements of the competition is too rigid 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.1.1.2.5. The competition includes too few entries 9 8 0 0 0 0 17 A.7.1.1.3. Neutral Comments 9 12 0 1 0 0 22 A.7.1.1.3.01. The design of the winner of the competition should be adopted for actual development 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.1.1.3.02. The competition should be fair 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 A.7.1.1.3.03. The public should be allowed to vote for their favorite entry 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.1.1.3.04. Other outstanding entries in the first round competition should be make public 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.1.1.3.05. The public should be allowed to set assessment criteria 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.1.1.3.06. The assessment criteria should be publicized 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.1.1.3.07. The competition should give more opportunities to local people 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.1.1.3.08. The competition should have proper assessment criteria 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 A.7.1.1.3.09. The competition should provide incentives 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.1.1.3.10. The entries should show different styles 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.1.2. Competition Documents 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.1.2.3. Neutral Comments 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.1.2.3.1. Chinese version of competition document should be available 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.2. The Public Engagement 342 344 3 2 1 2 694 A.7.2.1. Questionnaire 213 153 0 0 0 0 366 A.7.2.2.1. Positive Comments 131 82 0 0 0 0 213 A.7.2.2.1.01. The questionnaire is well-designed in general 109 66 0 0 0 0 175 A.7.2.2.1.02. The questions are comprehensive 11 4 0 0 0 0 15 A.7.2.2.1.03. The questions are easy to follow 7 8 0 0 0 0 15 A.7.2.2.1.04. The layout is good 3 1 0 0 0 0 4
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 54
Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.7.2.2.1.05. There are enough options to choose 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 A.7.2.2.2. Negative Comments 64 57 0 0 0 0 121 A.7.2.2.2.06. The questionnaire is too short 20 13 0 0 0 0 33 A.7.2.2.2.07. The questionnaire is too long 14 12 0 0 0 0 26 A.7.2.2.2.03. The questions are difficult to follow 8 8 0 0 0 0 16 A.7.2.2.2.08. The questions are too complicated 7 6 0 0 0 0 13 A.7.2.2.2.09. The questionnaire does not have enough blank space to write down opinions 3 4 0 0 0 0 7 A.7.2.2.2.10. The font size is too small 3 4 0 0 0 0 7 A.7.2.2.2.02. The questions are not comprehensive 3 3 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.2.2.2.05. The questionnaire does not have enough options 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 A.7.2.2.2.01. The questionnaire is poorly designed in general 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.2.2.2.04. The layout of the questionnaire is poor 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.2.2.2.11. It is easy to manipulate the survey results 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.2.2.2.12. The entries are listed in a random order and it is confusing 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2.2.13. The questions are misleading 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2.2.14. The size of the image of entries is too small 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2.3. Neutral Comments 18 14 0 0 0 0 32 A.7.2.2.3.1. More instruction and description can be added in the questionnaire 5 3 0 0 0 0 8 A.7.2.2.3.2. The questionnaire can be printed in black and white 6 2 0 0 0 0 8 A.7.2.2.3.3. The questionnaire design is fairly good 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.2.2.3.4. The questionnaire can be printed in color 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.2.3.5. Electronic questionnaire can be provided 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.2.3.6. The questionnaire can include questions asking for priority for the entries 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.2.2.3.7. It is not necessary to have images in the questionnaire 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2.3.8. A separate questionnaire for professionals can be provided 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2. Events and Roving Exhibitions 23 65 0 0 0 0 88 A.7.2.2.1. Positive Comments 7 6 0 0 0 0 13 A.7.2.2.1.1. The event or exhibition is informative 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 A.7.2.2.1.2. The event or roving exhibition is generally well-organized 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.2.1.3. The graphics on the display board are realistic 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.2.1.4. The information shown in the exhibition is easy to understand 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.2.2.2. Negative Comments 7 29 0 0 0 0 36 A.7.2.2.2.1. The event or exhibition is not informative enough 5 18 0 0 0 0 23 A.7.2.2.2.5. The location of the roving exhibition is not good 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.2.2.2.4. The information shown in the exhibition is difficult to understand 1 4 0 0 0 0 5
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 55
Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.7.2.2.2.3. The graphics on the display board are not realistic 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2.2.6 The size of fonts on the display board is too small 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2.3. Neutral Comments 9 30 0 0 0 0 39 A.7.2.2.3.1. More information can be mentioned in the event or exhibition 9 11 0 0 0 0 20 A.7.2.2.3.2. Physical models of the designs can be displayed in the roving exhibitions 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 A.7.2.2.3.3. Videos can be shown in the roving exhibitions 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.2.2.3.4. The roving exhibitions can be held in more locations 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.2.2.3.5. More explanation from the promoters can be provided 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2.3.6. The display board in the roving exhibition can be bigger 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.2.3.7. More topics on urban planning can be included in the roving exhibition 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.3. Video 8 9 2 0 0 2 21 A.7.2.3.1. Positive Comments 4 5 0 0 0 0 9 A.7.2.3.1.1. The videos are of good quality 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 A.7.2.3.1.2. The videos explain the ideas of the entries clearly 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 A.7.2.3.2. Negative Comments 3 2 2 0 0 1 8 A.7.2.3.2.1. The videos are of bad quality 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 A.7.2.3.2.2. The videos do not explain the ideas of the entries clearly 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 A.7.2.3.2.3. The length of the videos is too long 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.3.3. Neutral Comments 1 2 0 0 0 1 4 A.7.2.3.3.1. The videos can be embedded in the online questionnaire 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.3.3.2. The competitors can involve more in making the videos 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.3.3.3. A short introduction can be added to the videos 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.3.3.4. The language used for narration differs from one video to another video 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 A.7.2.4. Website 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 A.7.2.4.2. Negative Comments 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 A.7.2.4.2.1. The size of the images and text on the website is too small to read 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.4.2.2. It is not easy to review and compare the entries on the website 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.4.2.3. It takes too long to load the images 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.4.3. Neutral Comments 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 A.7.2.4.3.1. Users should be allowed to choose the entry they would like to view on the website 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.4.3.2. More text description about the entries can be provided 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.5. Promotion Approach 48 51 1 0 0 0 100 Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 56
Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.7.2.5.2. Negative Comments 16 24 0 0 0 0 40 A.7.2.5.2.1. The public engagement process lacks of adequate promotion 16 24 0 0 0 0 40 A.7.2.5.3. Neutral Comments 32 27 1 0 0 0 60 A.7.2.5.3.1. More promotion can be done in general 29 17 0 0 0 0 46 A.7.2.5.3.2. More promotion can be done on mass media (e.g. TV, newspapers) 1 7 0 0 0 0 8 A.7.2.5.3.3. More promotion can be done on the Internet 2 2 1 0 0 0 5 A.7.2.5.3.4. More promotion can be done through mobile apps 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.7. Stakeholders 42 39 0 2 1 0 84 A.7.2.7.1. Positive Comments 19 14 0 0 1 0 34 A.7.2.7.1.1. The public are well involved 19 14 0 0 1 0 34 A.7.2.7.2. Negative Comments 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.2.7.2.2. The public are not well involved 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.2.7.3. Neutral Comments 21 21 0 2 0 0 44 A.7.2.7.3.1. The public can be involved more in the PE 19 16 0 1 0 0 36 A.7.2.7.3.2. The professionals can be involved more in the PE 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.7.3.3. The residents living in the surrounding area can be involved more in the PE 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 A.7.2.7.3.4. The young people can be involved more in the PE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.7.3.5. Tourists can be involved more in the PE 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A.7.2.8. Other Views on Public Engagement Exercise 8 18 0 0 0 0 26 A.7.2.8.1. Positive Comments 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.8.1.1. The public engagement process is generally well organized 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.7.2.8.2. Negative Comments 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.2.8.2.1. The public engagement is meaningless 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 A.7.2.8.3. Neutral Comments 7 10 0 0 0 0 17 A.7.2.8.3.1. More public engagement activities can be held 4 8 0 0 0 0 12 A.7.2.8.3.2. The opinions collected through the PE should be considered carefully 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 A.7.2.8.3.3. Souvenirs should be given to the participants of the PE 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bold is used if the Total Count is at least 30
Of the 936 comments about the competition and public engagement, 694 were about the public engagement and 242 about the competition.
Of the 694 comments about the public engagement, 366 were about the questionnaire, of which 213 were positive including 175 that the questionnaire is well-designed in general (“A fine questionnaire, well designed!”) and 121 were negative, including 33 that the questionnaire was too short (“The questionnaire is too short”) and 32 were
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 57
neutral (“The questionnaire can be printed in black and white so that it is more environmental friendly”), 100 were about promotion, including 60 neutral comments of which 48 suggested more promotion in general (“More promotion can be done”) and 40 negative comments (“It is a pity that your organization did not list this public consultation in the government website”), 88 were about the events, of which 13 were positive, 36 were negative (“There is not enough information to study the individual designs”) and 39 were neutral (“More details about the feasibility can be provided”) and 84 about stakeholders, including 34 positive comments about good public involvement (“Very good, many people can think together”) and 44 neutral comments (“The opinions from different people in the society can be considered”).
Of the 242 comments about the competition, 240 were about the arrangements, of which 183 were positive, including 166 that it was meaningful/well-done (“very meaningful to set up this competition for Kai Tak”) and 35 were negative (“The quality of the entries is very poor”).
Table 3.7 shows the breakdown of the 166 comments about other miscellaneous issues by channel4.
Table 3.7 Other Miscellaneous Issues by Channel Divided by Channels
Node Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS
A.8. Other Miscellaneous Issues 71 83 2 2 2 6 166 A.8.1. KTF's Management Issues 7 11 1 1 1 0 21 A.8.1.1. Management and Operation 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 A.8.1.2. Strategic Positioning of KTF 7 8 1 1 1 0 18 A.8.1.2.1. Target users of KTF should not be tourists only 6 5 0 0 0 0 11 A.8.1.2.2. The current positioning of KTF is inadequate 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 A.8.1.2.3. Target users of KTF should include tourists 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 A.8.1.2.4. The positioning of KTF should not overlap with the WKCD 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 A.8.1.2.5. The whole Kai Tak approach channel should be included in the KTF project 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 A.8.2. Any Other Opinions (which cannot be categorized) 64 72 1 1 1 6 145 Bold is used if the Total Count is at least 30
4 While the count is above the limit, there is no common theme to report. Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 58
Chapter Four Conclusion
4.1 Quantitative Findings
This section aims to summarize the relative strengths of the four entries, based on the quantitative findings, i.e. the proportion of respondents who rated an entry as Excellent on the close-ended questions in the 4,094 feedback forms described in Chapter Two.
4.1.1 Entry A
This entry was given the highest rating on Identity and Creativity by both adults and adolescents. It was also given the highest rating on Neighbourhood synergy by adults. The highest rated idea was “Easy configuration with modular systems”.
4.1.2 Entry B
This entry was not rated highest on any domain or overall by either adults or adolescents and the only domain where it rated second was Identity, where adolescents rated it second. The highest rated idea was “Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment” by adults and “Reconnect to Mother Nature” by adolescents.
4.1.3 Entry C
This entry was given the highest rating overall by adults and highest rating for Sustainability by both adults and adolescents. The highest rated ideas by both adults and adolescents were “Healthy city” and “Natural ecology” which were rated almost the same by both groups.
4.1.4 Entry D
This entry was given the highest rating overall by adolescents and highest rating for Neighbourhood synergy by adolescents. The highest rated idea by both adults and adolescents was “Meaningfully engage with local authentic culture”.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 59
4.2 Qualitative Conclusions
The commonly expressed views presented in Chapter Three are summarized in bullet point form in decreasing count order, with the comment count in brackets.
4.2.1 Assessment Criteria
Assessment criteria (1371) o sustainability and green design (645) . need for this (560) (“Eco-friendly, less pollution”) . need to address water quality (35) (“The water treatment before flowing into the harbour is important”) o feasibility in implementation (242) . need for a feasible implementation (184) (“It must be plausible”) . need to be practical (50) (“(The design) should be practical”)) o need for cost effectiveness (164) (“Cost effectiveness of the whole project is important”) o need for innovation and creativity (121) (“Creativity is a very important factor in the project”) o harmonize and synergize with the neighbourhood (95) . the need for this (67) (“Connection to the neighbouring community is very important”)) o branding and image (52) (“(The Jury should consider) an iconic structure for the future look of HK as a smart city”) o need for originality and identity in place-making (52) (“To make Kai Tak unique, it needs something that is unconventional and unique”).
4.2.2 Technical and Design Considerations
o technical and design considerations (1370) o urban planning and design (625) . need (293) (“I believe that the redevelopment must be looked at from a long term perspective, especially with the planning”) . having less commercial development (74) (“The last thing I would like to see is to turn it into another commercial area where Hong Kong already have plenty”) . more space for sports, leisure and relaxation (67) (“It should be
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 60
an attractive place for public to relax in leisure time”) . more public space (52) (“Please create a public space for the people who live here”) . need for diversity (39) (“The city design should consider diversity”) o connectivity (124) . need to consider connectivity, traffic and accessibility (62) (“think of accessibility”) o architecture (116) . need (45) (“(The jury should consider the) architecture”)) need to consider the appearance, perspective and character of the architectural design (36) (“(The jury should consider) the appearance and style of the building”)) o place-making strategies (101) . need for a theme, events and facilities to attract visitors (71) (“It is better to have a night market with small stalls to attract people to visit”)) o showcasing local culture and heritage (70) . display of the culture and heritage of the city (60) (“We need to bring in elements of the historical past of the area - old buildings, relics, the old stone bridge, the original/first settlers in the area to give the place its character”) o landscape architecture (70) . need to consider this (62) (“The jury should consider more the landscape architecture”) o engineering (67) . need to consider this (48) (“(the jury should consider the) engineering”)) o providing suitable water-based activities in the water body (62) (“The water body should have huge free space for all kinds of water sports activities”).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 61
4.2.3 Specific Areas
o the closed waterbody (97) o the waterbody as a whole (70) (“Make good use of the unoccupied water body”).
4.2.4 Other Comments
o meeting the needs of the people (43) (“(The design should) fulfill the needs of people from different social classes”)).
4.2.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of Entries
Entry A
Strengths o positive about innovation and creativity (128) (“Like the idea of floating structure! Dynamic, versatile, innovative”) o positive about flexible design for future events and use (76) (“The system allows configurations that will be invented in the future”) o positive about place-making strategies (61) (“It fills the area with vibrancy”) o positive comments about originality and identity in place-making (35) (“The floating pontoons concept has given a special character to the area”) o positive about showcase of local culture and heritage (35) o displaying the culture and heritage of the city (33) (“It preserves the character of old fishing villages of Hong Kong”) o positive that referred to the whole waterbody (32), with 60 positive comments (“It seems that only option A makes good use of the area of the typhoon shelter”) o harmony and synergy with the neighbourhood (24) (“the best design among all because it also addresses the connection between the new development and the old district area of Kwun Tong”) o cost effectiveness (23) (“A is the best idea and most cost-effective”).
Mixed o positive (48), neutral (21) and negative (28) about the design being green and sustainable (“environmentally friendly design, operation, sustainability”, “the practicality of the floating pots and sustainability remains something to be
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 62
worked out by the construction experts”,“There are too many lights in the design of Entry A which would create serious light pollution”) o positive (27) and negative (34) about urban planning and design (“good planning”,“just like a typical shopping arcade”)
Weaknesses o negative about feasibility in implementation(67) o the design is not feasible(52) (“doubt if it can bear a heavy load and still be easy to move to a different location”) Key ideas o key ideas for Entry A(117) o positive (63) about “Easy configuration with modular systems” (It has the most flexibility for creating different kinds of space”) o positive (34) about “Seamless modern and tradition integration” (“It brings in the traditional Hong Kong culture”).
Entry B
Strengths o positive about sustainability and green design (91) (“The extensive use of renewable energy in entry B is appreciated”) o positive about innovation and creativity (61) (“I find the idea of "Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment" very innovative and very environmental-friendly”) o positive about architecture (32) o good in terms of appearance, perspective and character (31) (“Entry B is the only one that has a unique architecture form”) o positive about place-making strategies (26) (“The eco-terrace architecture helps to transform the Kai Tak Development Area into a new tourist spot”) o harmony and synergy with the neighbourhood (22) (“Exhibition B presents the most realistic and connected idea to Kai Tak and larger Kowloon area”) o branding and image (21) (“Entry B is iconic and resembles the old airport 'taking off' point.”) o positive about originality and identity in place-making (20) (“This landmark architecture that gives this area a definition and identity”).
Weaknesses o negative about urban planning and design (25) (“Just too commercial”).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 63
Key ideas o key ideas of Entry B (86) o positive (28) about “Reconnect to the mother nature” (“My favourite key idea of reconnecting to nother nature because I feel that the world is increasingly aware of global warming”) o positive (24) comments about “Eco-terrace regenerates the environment” (“I find the idea of "Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment" very innovative and very environmental-friendly”)
Entry C
Strengths o positive (143) about sustainability and green design (“Entry C includes the largest green area”) o positive (34) about place-making strategies (“render itself into a world-class tourist spot and a popular destination for both resident and sport-lovers”)
Mixed o positive (66) and negative (21) about innovation and creativity (“The idea of floating island is very creative!”,“average and not creative”) o urban planning and design o positive (64) . 23 about leaving space for sports, leisure and relaxation (“Entry C is a wonderful entry, as this entry provides a recreational area for the community to enjoying their peaceful time”) . 21 about adequate public space (“It offers more green areas and water frontage dedicated to the public”) o negative (30) (“The design of entry C is too commercial”)
Weaknesses negative (21) about feasibility in implementation, (“It is too conceptual and difficult to materialize”)
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 64
Key ideas o key ideas of Entry C (81) o positive (46) about “Natural ecology” (“My favourite idea is people trying to connect to another nature and bring alertness to the public of dangerous global warming”) o positive (29) about “Healthy city” (“Hongkong needs such a place for nature and health”).
Entry D
Positive positive (51) about sustainability and green design (“Entry D is unique and can reduce the energy consumption in Hong Kong”) positive (21) about place-making strategies (“It turns Hong Kong from a cultural desert to a lively place”) positive (20) about architecture (“I choose the Dragon park as a practical solution, with strong identity, modern appearance”).
Mixed urban planning and design o positive (44) . creates diversity (24) (“Entry D is special as it includes diverse cultures”) o negative (38) . too commercial (24) (“Too commercial and it looks like Macau somehow”) innovation and creativity o positive (42) (“I like D because the design is innovative”) o negative (25) (“The design of "Dragon Park" is overused and lacks creativity”).
Weaknesses negative (23) about originality and identity in place-making (“dull and lacks any kind of identity”)
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 65
Key ideas o key ideas of Entry D (39) o positive (19) comments about “Meaningfully engage local culture” (“Tourists would have an enriching experience of the culture on Hong Kong”)
Combined: combining ideas of specific entries (72) (“If the ideas of entry B and C can mix together, with local culture from entry A, it will be the best of all worlds”).
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 66
4.2.6 Public Engagement
the public engagement (694) o the questionnaire (366) . positive (213) the questionnaire is well-designed in general (175) (“A fine questionnaire, well designed!”) . negative (121) the questionnaire was too short (33) (“The questionnaire is too short”) . neutral (32) (“The questionnaire can be printed in black and white so that it is more environmental friendly”) o promotion (100) . neutral (60) more promotion in general (46) (“More promotion can be done”) . negative (40) (“It is a pity that your organization did not list this public consultation in the government website”) o the events (88) . positive (13) . negative (36) (“There is not enough information to study the individual designs”) . neutral (39) (“More details about the feasibility can be provided”) o stakeholders (84) . positive (34) about good public involvement (“Very good, many people can think together”) . neutral (44) (“The opinions from different people in the society can be considered”)
4.2.7 Competition
the competition (242) o positive (183) . that it was meaningful/well-done (166) (“very meaningful to set up this competition for Kai Tak”) o negative (35) (“The quality of the entries is very poor”)
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 67
4.2.8 Overall
It can be seen from the above summary that the qualitative feedback is quite diverse, with a wide range of issues highlighted as important in the assessment criteria and technical considerations. There was positive and negative feedback about all the entries highlighting their respective strengths and weaknesses and there is no entry that is supported the most on all criteria. Feedback on the competition was overall positive with concerns primarily about the entries rather than the competition process.
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 68
Annex A Feedback Questionnaire
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 69
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 70
Annex B Public View Analytical Framework
Table A Comment-based Nodes
A.2. Comments on What the Jury Should Consider (if not commenting on specific entries)
A.2.1. Criteria in Assessment Guideline
A.2.1.1. A) Branding and Image
A.2.1.1.1. The design should be iconic or includes iconic structure A.2.1.1.2. The design should promote the brand and image of Hong Kong A.2.1.1.3. The design should be able to draw people's attention
A.2.1.2. B) Innovation and Creativity
A.2.1.2.1 The design should be innovative and creative
A.2.1.3. C) Originality and Identity in place making
A.2.1.3.1. The design should make Kai Tak a place with originality and identity
A.2.1.4. D) Harmonize and Synergize with the Neighbourhood
A.2.1.4.1. The design should integrate into and connect to the neigbourhood to achieve harmonization A.2.1.4.2. The design should create synergy effect in the area development
A.2.1.5. E) Sustainability and Green Design (including Safety and Health Life Style)
A.2.1.5.1. The design should be green and sustainable A.2.1.5.2. The design should address the water quality problem A.2.1.5.3. The design should cope with other safety issues
A.2.1.5.3.1 The design should consider the effect of weather on green and safety design A.2.1.5.3.2 The design should cope with other safety issues
A.2.1.5.4. The design should promote healthy life style A.2.1.5.5. The design should propose an adequate sewage and waste management design
A.2.1.6. F) Feasibility in implementation
A.2.1.6.1 The design should be feasible and implementable A.2.1.6.2. The design should be practical A.2.1.6.3. The design should consider the maintenance issues
A.2.1.7. G) Cost Effectiveness
A.2.1.7.1. The Jury should consider the cost-effectiveness of the design (e.g. construction and maintenance costs)
A.2.1.8. H) Response to design requirement
A.2.2. Technical Aspects and Design Considerations
A.2.2.01. Urban Planning and Design
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 71
A.2.2.1.01. The Jury should consider urban planning, design and use of space A.2.2.1.02. The design should have less commercial development A.2.2.1.03. The design should include space for sports, leisure and relaxation A.2.2.1.04. The design should include more public space A.2.2.1.05. The design should consider diversity A.2.2.1.06. The design should include places for arts development A.2.2.1.07. The design should consider the capacities to handle a large amount of visitors A.2.2.1.08. The design should include places for commercial development A.2.2.1.09. The design should consider density of buildings A.2.2.1.10. The design should include places for residential development A.2.2.1.11. The design should include places for communal facilities and activities A.2.2.1.12. The design should have less green zone A.2.2.1.13. The design should include adequate sanitary facilities A.2.2.1.14. The design should include adequate medical facilities A.2.2.1.15. The design should focus on a specific theme A.2.2.1.16. The design should include enough parking area A.2.2.1.17. The design should consider adequate signage system A.2.2.1.18. Other comments concerning urban planning and design
A.2.2.02. Architecture
A.2.2.2.1. The Jury should consider the architecture aspect of the design in general A.2.2.2.2. The forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character of the architectural design should be considered A.2.2.2.3. The function and use of space of the architectural design should be considered A.2.2.2.4. The feasibility of the architectural design should be considered A.2.2.2.5. The building materials used in the architectural design should be considered A.2.2.2.6. The effect of weather to the architecture should be considered
A.2.2.03. Place-making Strategies
A.2.2.3.1. The design should propose an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors A.2.2.3.2. The design should have a right combination of commercial activities for drawing visitors A.2.2.3.3. Other comments on place-making strategies
A.2.2.04. Connectivity
A.2.2.4.1. The design should consider the connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general A.2.2.4.2. The design should include cycle track A.2.2.4.2. The design should consider pedestrian access A.2.2.4.3. Considerations Towards EFLS (monorail)
A.2.2.4.3.1. The design should include monorail A.2.2.4.3.2. The design should not rely on light rail for transport A.2.2.4.3.3. The design should not include light rail A.2.2.4.3.4. Other comments towards light rail
A.2.2.4.4. The design should consider land transport connection A.2.2.4.5. The design should consider water transport connection A.2.2.4.6. The design should consider connection to current mass transit systems
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 72
A.2.2.05. Showcase of Local Culture and Heritage
A.2.2.5.1. Display of the culture and heritage of the city A.2.2.5.2. Display of old Kai Tak airport heritage
A.2.2.06. Landscape Architecture
A.2.2.6.1. The Jury should consider the landscape architecture of the design in general A.2.2.6.2. Right types of landscaping plants should be used A.2.2.6.3. The effect of weather on landscape architecture should be considered A.2.2.6.4. The landscape design should include a larger area of plantation zone A.2.2.6.5. The landscape design should include a right theme
A.2.2.07. Engineering
A.2.2.7.1. The Jury should consider engineering issues of the design in general A.2.2.7.2. The pollution made to the surrounding environment during the construction should be considered A.2.2.7.3. The effect of weather on engineering should be considered A.2.2.7.4. The construction should not affect the existing underground utilities (e.g. dung channel) A.2.2.7.5. Other engineering issues
A.2.2.08. Providing Suitable Water-based Activities in the Water Body
A.2.2.8.1. Facilities for water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.) should be provided in the water body A.2.2.8.2. Facilities and moorings for recreational boating should be provided in the water body A.2.2.8.3. The design should propose suitable water-based activities in general A.2.2.8.4. Other comments on providing suitable water-based activities A.2.2.8.5. The water body should not be used for moorings of large boats
A.2.2.09. Flexible Design
A.2.2.9.1. The design should be flexible for holding urban city events or future use
A.2.2.10. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and Reclamation issues
A.2.2.10.1. No reclamation in the KTF site OR the PHO should be observed A.2.2.10.2. More reclamation can be considered A.2.2.10.3. The scale of reclamation should be concerned
A.2.2.11. Construction Phasing Plan
A.2.2.11.1. The timeframe of construction should be considered A.2.2.11.1. Proper phasing of construction should be considered
A.2.2.12. Surveying
A.2.2.12.1. The Jury should consider survey aspect in general A.2.2.12.2. The floor area being used should be considered
A.2.2.13. Water Body Functioning as Typhoon Shelter
A.2.2.13.1. The water body should retain the function as typhoon shelter (for working or recreational boats) A.2.2.13.2. Height for monorail bridge should be large enough for boat passing
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 73
A.2.2.14. Water-land Interface
A.2.2.14.1. The design should include adequate water-land interface
A.2.2.15. Unobstructed Views to the Surrounding Areas
A.2.2.15.1. The views to the surrounding areas should not be obstructed
A.2.3. Specific Area Within Kai Tak Fantasy
A.2.3.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip
A.2.3.1.1. As a whole A.2.3.1.2. Tourism Node A.2.3.1.3. Runway Park A.2.3.1.4. Heliport A.2.3.1.5. Runway waterfront promenade
A.2.3.2. Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area
A.2.3.2.1. As a whole A.2.3.2.2. Three existing piers
A.2.3.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody)
A.2.3.3.1. As a whole A.2.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter A.2.3.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel
A.2.4. Other Miscellaneous Comments
A.2.4.01. The design should meet the needs of people A.2.4.02. The design should look good A.2.4.03. The design should consider all aspects A.2.4.04. The design should facilitate economic development A.2.4.05. The ideas of different entries can be combined A.2.4.06. The design should facilitate tourism A.2.4.07. The design should look modern A.2.4.08. The Jury should consider example of waterfront development in other cities A.2.4.09. The design should improve people's life A.2.4.10. The design should be interactive A.2.4.11. The design should bring vibrancy A.2.4.12. The design should consider the influence to neigbourhood during construction A.2.4.13. The design can refer to similar projects in other cities A.2.4.14. The design should consider number of people who will use the facilities A.2.4.15. The design should not target mainlanders A.2.4.16. The design should consider programming design A.2.4.17. The design should consider population issues A.2.4.18. The design should be systematic A.2.4.19. The design should be user-friendly A.2.4.20. Whether the design resemble other existing designs A.2.4.21. The design should comply with relevant ordinances and requirements
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 74
A.3. Comments on Individual Entries (specified by C.1)
A.3.1. Criteria in Assessment Guideline
A.3.1.1. A) Branding and Image
A.3.1.1.1. Positive Comments
A.3.1.1.1.1. The design is iconic or includes iconic structure A.3.1.1.1.2. The design promotes the brand and image of Hong Kong A.3.1.1.1.3. The design draws people's attention
A.3.1.1.2. Negative Comments
A.3.1.1.2.1. The design is not iconic and does not include any iconic structure A.3.1.1.2.2. The design cannot promotes the brand and image of Hong Kong A.3.1.1.2.3. The design doesn't draw people's attention
A.3.1.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.1.2. B) Innovation and Creativity
A.3.1.2.1. Positive Comments
A.3.1.2.1.1. The design is innovative and creative
A.3.1.2.2. Negative Comments
A.3.1.3.2.1. The design is neither innovative nor creative
A.3.1.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.1.3. C) Originality and Identity in place making
A.3.1.3.1. Positive Comments
A.3.1.3.1.1. The design makes Kai Tak a place with originality and identity
A.3.1.3.2. Negative Comments
A.3.1.3.2.1. The design does not make Kai Tak a place with originality and identity
A.3.1.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.1.4. D) Harmonize and Synergize with the Neighbourhood
A.3.1.4.1. Positive Comments
A.3.1.4.1.1. The design integrates into and connects to the neigbourhood to achieve harmonization A.3.1.4.1.2. The design creates synergy effect in the area development
A.3.1.4.2. Negative Comments
A.3.1.4.2.1. The design neither integrates into nor connects to the neigbourhood to achieve harmonization A.3.1.4.2.2. The design does not create synergy effect in the area development
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 75
A.3.1.4.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.1.4.3.1. The design may consider more on integration and connection to the neigbourhood to achieve harmonization A.3.1.4.3.2. The design may consider more on creating synergy effect in the area development
A.3.1.5. E) Sustainability and Green Design (including Safety and Health Life Style)
A.3.1.5.1. Positive Comments
A.3.1.5.1.1. The design is green and sustainable A.3.1.5.1.2. The design promotes healthy life style A.3.1.5.1.3. The design addresses the water quality problem A.3.1.5.1.4. The design can cope with safety issues
A.3.1.5.1.4.1. The design has considered the effect of weather on green and safety design A.3.1.5.1.4.2. The design can cope with other safety issues
A.3.1.5.2. Negative Comments
A.3.1.5.2.1. The design is not green and sustainable A.3.1.5.2.2. The design does not promote healthy life style A.3.1.5.2.3. The design does not address the water quality problem A.3.1.5.2.4. The design lacks consideration on safety issues
A.3.1.5.2.4.1. The design did not consider the effect of weather on green and safety design A.3.1.5.2.4.2. The design lacks consideration on safety issues
A.3.1.5.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.1.5.3.1. The design may consider more on safety issues
A.3.1.5.3.1.1. The design may need to consider the effect of weather on green and safety design A.3.1.5.3.1.2. The design may consider more on other safety issues
A.3.1.5.3.2. The design may consider more green and sustainable design A.3.1.5.3.3. The design may consider more on the water quality problem A.3.1.5.3.4. The design may consider an adequate sewage and waste management design A.3.1.5.3.5. Other neutral comments concerning sustainability and green design
A.3.1.6. F) Feasibility in implementation
A.3.1.6.1. Positive Comments
A.3.1.6.1.1. The design is feasible and implementable A.3.1.6.1.2. The design is practical A.3.1.6.1.3. The design requires less maintenance
A.3.1.6.2. Negative Comments
A.3.1.6.2.1. The design is not feasible and implementable A.3.1.6.2.2. The design is not practical A.3.1.6.2.3. The design is difficult in maintenance
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 76
A.3.1.6.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.1.6.3.1. The design may consider more on feasibility in implementation A.3.1.6.3.2. The design may consider more on maintenance issues A.3.1.6.3.3. The design may consider more on practicality
A.3.1.7. G) Cost Effectiveness
A.3.1.7.1. Positive Comments
A.3.1.7.1.1. The design is cost-effective
A.3.1.7.2. Negative Comments
A.3.1.7.2.1. The design is not cost-effective
A.3.1.7.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.1.7.3.1. The design may consider more on cost-effectiveness
A.3.1.8. H) Response to design requirement
A.3.1.8.1. Positive Comments
A.3.1.8.1.1. The design meets the design requirements
A.3.1.8.2. Negative Comments
A.3.1.8.2.1. The design does not meet the design requirements
A.3.1.8.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2. Technical Aspects and Design Considerations
A.3.2.01. Urban Planning and Design
A.3.2.1.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.1.1.01. The design includes adequate places for sports, leisure and relaxation activities A.3.2.1.1.02. The design includes adequate public space A.3.2.1.1.03. The design creates diversity A.3.2.1.1.04. The design shows good urban planning, design and good use of space in general A.3.2.1.1.05. The design includes adequate places for commercial development A.3.2.1.1.06. The design includes adequate places for arts development A.3.2.1.1.07. The design is less commercial A.3.2.1.1.08. The design has enough capacities to handle large amount of visitors A.3.2.1.1.09. The design is not loosely organized A.3.2.1.1.10. The design does not include too much green zone A.3.2.1.1.11. The design is not too diversified and has adequate focus A.3.2.1.1.12. The design does not lack residential development A.3.2.1.1.13. Other positive comments on urban planning and design
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 77
A.3.2.1.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.1.2.01. The design lacks places for sports, leisure and relaxation activities A.3.2.1.2.02. The design lacks enough public space A.3.2.1.2.03. The design lacks diversity A.3.2.1.2.04. The design lacks good urban planning, design and good use of space in general A.3.2.1.2.05. The design lacks enough places for commercial development A.3.2.1.2.06. The design lacks enough places for arts development A.3.2.1.2.07. The design is too commercial A.3.2.1.2.08. The design does not have enough capacities to handle large amount of visitors A.3.2.1.2.09. The design is loosely organized A.3.2.1.2.10. The design includes too much green zone A.3.2.1.2.11. The design is too diversified and lacks of focus A.3.2.1.2.12. The design lacks residential development A.3.2.1.2.13. Other negative comments on urban planning and design
A.3.2.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.1.3.1. The design may include more commercial elements A.3.2.1.3.2. The design may include more sports, leisure and relaxation facilities A.3.2.1.3.3. The design may need to consider the capacities to handle large amount of visitors A.3.2.1.3.4. Other neutral comments on urban planning and design
A.3.2.02. Architecture
A.3.2.2.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.2.1.1. The architectural design is good in forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character A.3.2.2.1.2. The architectural design is good in terms of functionality and use of space A.3.2.2.1.3. The architectural design is good in terms of the building materials used
A.3.2.2.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.2.2.1. The architectural design is not good in forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character A.3.2.2.2.2. The architectural design is not good in terms of functionality and use of space A.3.2.2.2.3. The architectural design is not good in terms of the building materials used
A.3.2.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.2.3.1. The forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character of the architectural design may need more concerns A.3.2.2.3.2. The functionality and use of space of the architectural design may need more concerns A.3.2.2.3.3. The building materials used in the architectural design may need more concerns
A.3.2.03. Place-making Strategies
A.3.2.3.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.3.1.1. The design proposes an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors A.3.2.3.1.2. The design includes a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 78
A.3.2.3.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.3.2.1. The design lacks an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors A.3.2.3.2.2. The design lacks a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors
A.3.2.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.3.3.1. The design may need an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors A.3.2.3.3.2. The design may include a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors
A.3.2.04. Connectivity
A.3.2.4.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.4.1.1. The design has adequate connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general A.3.2.4.1.2. It is good to include cycle track in the design A.3.2.4.1.3. It is good to include EFLS (monorail) in the design A.3.2.4.1.4. The design has adequate pedestrian access A.3.2.4.1.5. The design has adequate land transport connection A.3.2.4.1.6. The design has adequate water transport connection A.3.2.4.1.7. The design has adequate connection to current mass transit system
A.3.2.4.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.4.2.1. The design does not have adequate connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general A.3.2.4.2.2. It is not good to include cycle track in the design A.3.2.4.2.3. It is not good to include EFLS (monorail) in the design A.3.2.4.2.4. The design does not have adequate pedestrian access A.3.2.4.2.5. The design does not have adequate land transport connection A.3.2.4.2.6. The design does not have adequate water transport connection A.3.2.4.2.7. The design does not have adequate connection to current mass transit system
A.3.2.4.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.4.3.1. The design may consider more on the connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general A.3.2.4.3.2. The design may consider inclusion of a cycle track A.3.2.4.3.3. The design may consider inclusion of EFLS (monorail) A.3.2.4.3.4. The design may consider more on pedestrian access A.3.2.4.3.5. The design may consider more adequate land transport connection A.3.2.4.3.6. The design may consider more on water transport connection
A.3.2.05. Showcase of Local Culture and Heritage
A.3.2.5.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.5.1.1. The design displays the culture and heritage of the city A.3.2.5.1.2. The design displays the old Kai Tak airport heritage
A.3.2.5.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.5.2.1. The design does not display the culture and heritage of the city A.3.2.5.2.2. The design does not display the old Kai Tak airport heritage
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 79
A.3.2.5.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.5.3.1. The design may display more the culture and heritage of the city A.3.2.5.3.2. The design may display more the old Kai Tak airport heritage
A.3.2.06. Landscape Architecture
A.3.2.6.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.6.1.1. The landscape architecture of the design is good in general
A.3.2.6.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.6.2.1. The landscape architecture of the design is not good in general
A.3.2.6.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.6.3.1. The design may consider more on landscape architecture
A.3.2.07. Engineering
A.3.2.7.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.7.1.1. The design does not have engineering issues
A.3.2.7.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.7.2.1. The design has engineering issues
A.3.2.7.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.7.3.1. The design may need to consider more in engineering aspect
A.3.2.08. Providing Suitable Water-based Activities in the Water Body
A.3.2.8.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.8.1.1. The design proposes suitable water-based activities in general A.3.2.8.1.2. The design proposes adequate water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.)
A.3.2.8.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.8.2.1. The design does not propose suitable water-based activities in general A.3.2.8.2.2. The design does not propose adequate water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.)
A.3.2.8.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.8.3.1. The design may propose more suitable water-based activities in general
A.3.2.09. Flexible Design
A.3.2.9.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.9.1.1. The design is flexible for holding urban city event or future use
A.3.2.9.2. Negative Comments
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 80
A.3.2.9.2.1. The design is not flexible for holding urban city event or future use
A.3.2.9.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.10. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance OR Reclamation issues
A.3.2.10.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.10.1.1. The design does not require reclamation and observe the PHO
A.3.2.10.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.10.2.1. The design requires reclamation or does not observe the PHO
A.3.2.10.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.10.3.1. The design may require reclamation and may not comply with the PHO
A.3.2.11. Construction Phasing Plan
A.3.2.11.1. Positive Comments A.3.2.11.2. Negative Comments A.3.2.11.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.12. Surveying
A.3.2.12.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.12.1.1. The ratio of land being used is adequate
A.3.2.12.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.12.2.1. The ratio of land being used is too low
A.3.2.12.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.13. Water Body Functioning as Typhoon Shelter
A.3.2.13.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.13.1.1. The design retain the function of typhoon shelter A.3.2.13.1.2. The headroom of the monorail bridge is tall enough for ship passage
A.3.2.13.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.13.2.1. The design block the use of the typhoon shelter A.3.2.13.2.2. The headroom of the monorail bridge is not tall enough for ship passage
A.3.2.13.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.13.3.1. The design may consider retaining the use of the typhoon shelter
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 81
A.3.2.14. Water-land Interface
A.3.2.14.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.14.1.1. The design includes adequate water-land interface
A.3.2.14.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.14.2.1. The design does not include adequate water-land interface
A.3.2.14.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.2.15. Unobstructed Views to the Surrounding Areas
A.3.2.15.1. Positive Comments
A.3.2.15.1.1. The design does not obstruct the views to the surrounding
A.3.2.15.2. Negative Comments
A.3.2.15.2.1. The design obstructs the views to the surrounding
A.3.2.15.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3. Regarding Specific Area Mentioned by Respondents
A.3.3.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip
A.3.3.1.1. As a whole
A.3.3.1.1.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.1.1.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.1.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3.1.2. Tourism Node
A.3.3.1.2.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.1.2.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.1.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3.1.3. Runway Park
A.3.3.1.3.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.1.3.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.1.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3.1.4. Heliport
A.3.3.1.4.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.1.4.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.1.4.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3.1.5. Runway waterfront promenade
A.3.3.1.5.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.1.5.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.1.5.3. Neutral Comments
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 82
A.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area
A.3.3.2.1. As a whole
A.3.3.2.1.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.2.1.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.2.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3.2.2. Three existing piers
A.3.3.2.2.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.2.2.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.2.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody)
A.3.3.3.1. As a whole
A.3.3.3.1.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.3.1.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.3.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter
A.3.3.3.2.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.3.2.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.3.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.3.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel
A.3.3.3.3.1. Positive Comments A.3.3.3.3.2. Negative Comments A.3.3.3.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.4. Other Miscellaneous Comments
A.3.4.1. Positive Comments
A.3.4.1.01. The design looks good A.3.4.1.02. The design looks modern A.3.4.1.03. The design meets people's needs A.3.4.1.04. The design does not look too exaggerating A.3.4.1.05. The design brings vibrancy A.3.4.1.06. The design looks serious A.3.4.1.07. The design facilitates economic development A.3.4.1.08. The design has considered all aspects A.3.4.1.09. The design improves life quality of people A.3.4.1.10. The theme name of the design is good A.3.4.2.11. The design does not look too upscale
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 83
A.3.4.2. Negative Comments
A.3.4.2.01. The design does not look good A.3.4.2.02. The design looks old-fashioned A.3.4.2.03. The design does not meet people's needs A.3.4.2.04. The design looks too exaggerating A.3.4.2.05. The design looks too plain A.3.4.2.06. The design looks not serious A.3.4.2.07. The design does not facilitate economic development A.3.4.2.08. The design does not consider all aspects A.3.4.2.09. The design does not improve life quality of people A.3.4.2.10. The theme name of the design is not good A.3.4.2.11. The design looks too upscale
A.3.4.3. Neutral Comments
A.3.4.3.1. The ideas of specific entries can be combined A.3.4.3.2. The design resembles specific existing designs A.3.4.3.3. The design is in American style
A.4. Comments on the Key Ideas of Individual Entries
A.4.1. Entry A
A.4.1.1. Seamless modern and tradition integration
A.4.1.1.1. Positive Comments A.4.1.1.2. Negative Comments A.4.1.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.1.2. Easy configuration with modular systems
A.4.1.2.1. Positive Comments A.4.1.2.2. Negative Comments A.4.1.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.1.3. Cost-effective and practical construction
A.4.1.3.1. Positive Comments A.4.1.3.2. Negative Comments A.4.1.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.2. Entry B
A.4.2.1. Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment
A.4.2.1.1. Positive Comments A.4.2.1.2. Negative Comments A.4.2.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.2.2. Reconnect to the Mother Nature
A.4.2.2.1. Positive Comments A.4.2.2.2. Negative Comments A.4.2.2.3. Neutral Comments
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 84
A.4.2.3. Formula E Evolves the Future
A.4.2.3.1. Positive Comments A.4.2.3.2. Negative Comments A.4.2.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.3. Entry C
A.4.3.1. Diverse enterprises
A.4.3.1.1. Positive Comments A.4.3.1.2. Negative Comments A.4.3.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.3.2. Natural ecology
A.4.3.2.1. Positive Comments A.4.3.2.2. Negative Comments A.4.3.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.3.3. Healthy city
A.4.3.3.1. Positive Comments A.4.3.3.2. Negative Comments A.4.3.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.4. Entry D
A.4.4.1. A Constantly evolving Flexible Space
A.4.4.1.1. Positive Comments A.4.4.1.2. Negative Comments A.4.4.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.4.2. Meaningfully Engage local authentic Culture
A.4.4.2.1. Positive Comments A.4.4.2.2. Negative Comments A.4.4.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.4.4.3. Experience and reconnect with nature
A.4.4.3.1. Positive Comments A.4.4.3.2. Negative Comments A.4.4.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.5. Respondents' Own Specific Ideas on Place-making OR What Should be Built at KTF
A.5.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip
A.5.1.1. As a whole A.5.1.2. Tourism Node A.5.1.3. Runway Park A.5.1.4. Runway Waterfront Promenade A.5.1.5. Heliport
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 85
A.5.2. Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area
A.5.2.1. As a whole A.5.2.2. Three existing piers
A.5.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody)
A.5.3.1. As a whole A.5.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter A.5.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel
A.5.4. Unspecified Area in KTF
A.6. Macro Issues
A.6.1. Urban Planning of Hong Kong A.6.2. Urban Planning of KTF's Surrounding Areas A.6.3. Hong Kong's Cultural and Policies or Strategies
A.7. Ideas Competition and Public Engagement
A.7.1. Ideas Competition
A.7.1.1. Competition Arrangement
A.7.1.1.1. Positive Comments
A.7.1.1.1.1. The competition is meaningful and well-done A.7.1.1.1.2. The competition includes qualified designs A.7.1.1.1.3. The competition allows people to know more about KTF A.7.1.1.1.4. The requirements of the competition is not too rigid A.7.1.1.1.5. The competition includes enough entries
A.7.1.1.2. Negative Comments
A.7.1.1.2.1. The competition is not well-organized A.7.1.1.2.2. The competition does not include qualified entries A.7.1.1.2.3. The competition does not allow people to know more about KTF A.7.1.1.2.4. The requirements of the competition is too rigid A.7.1.1.2.5. The competition includes too few entries
A.7.1.1.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.1.1.3.01. The design of the winner of the competition should be adopted for actual development A.7.1.1.3.02. The competition should be fair A.7.1.1.3.03. The public should be allowed to vote for their favorite entry A.7.1.1.3.04. Other outstanding entries in the first round competition should be make public A.7.1.1.3.05. The public should be allowed to set assessment criteria A.7.1.1.3.06. The assessment criteria should be publicized A.7.1.1.3.07. The competition should give more opportunities to local people A.7.1.1.3.08. The competition should have proper assessment criteria A.7.1.1.3.09. The competition should provide incentives A.7.1.1.3.10. The entries should show different styles
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 86
A.7.1.2. Competition Documents
A.7.1.2.1. Positive Comments A.7.1.2.2. Negative Comments A.7.1.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.1.2.3.1. Chinese version of competition document should be available
A.7.2. The Public Engagement
A.7.2.1. Questionnaire
A.7.2.2.1. Positive Comments
A.7.2.2.1.01. The questionnaire is well-designed in general A.7.2.2.1.02. The questions are comprehensive A.7.2.2.1.03. The questions are easy to follow A.7.2.2.1.04. The layout is good A.7.2.2.1.05. There are enough options to choose A.7.2.2.1.06. The questionnaire is not too short A.7.2.2.1.07. The questionnaire is not too long A.7.2.2.1.08. The questions are not too complicated A.7.2.2.1.09. The questionnaire have enough blank space to write down opinions A.7.2.2.1.10. The font size is not too small A.7.2.2.1.11. It is not easy to manipulate the survey results A.7.2.2.1.12. The entries are listed in a random order and it is good A.7.2.2.1.13. The questions are not misleading A.7.2.2.2.14. The size of the image of entries is not too small
A.7.2.2.2. Negative Comments
A.7.2.2.2.01. The questionnaire is poorly designed in general A.7.2.2.2.02. The questions are not comprehensive A.7.2.2.2.03. The questions are difficult to follow A.7.2.2.2.04. The layout of the questionnaire is poor A.7.2.2.2.05. The questionnaire does not have enough options A.7.2.2.2.06. The questionnaire is too short A.7.2.2.2.07. The questionnaire is too long A.7.2.2.2.08. The questions are too complicated A.7.2.2.2.09. The questionnaire does not have enough blank space to write down opinions A.7.2.2.2.10. The font size is too small A.7.2.2.2.11. It is easy to manipulate the survey results A.7.2.2.2.12. The entries are listed in a random order and it is confusing A.7.2.2.2.13. The questions are misleading A.7.2.2.2.14. The size of the image of entries is too small
A.7.2.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.2.2.3.1. More instruction and description can be added in the questionnaire A.7.2.2.3.2. The questionnaire can be printed in black and white A.7.2.2.3.3. The questionnaire design is fairly good A.7.2.2.3.4. The questionnaire can be printed in color A.7.2.2.3.5. Electronic questionnaire can be provided A.7.2.2.3.6. The questionnaire can include questions asking for priority for the entries A.7.2.2.3.7. It is not necessary to have images in the questionnaire A.7.2.2.3.8. A separate questionnaire for professionals can be provided
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 87
A.7.2.2. Events and Roving Exhibitions
A.7.2.2.1. Positive Comments
A.7.2.2.1.1. The event or exhibition is informative A.7.2.2.1.2. The event or roving exhibition is generally well-organized A.7.2.2.1.3. The graphics on the display board are realistic A.7.2.2.1.4. The information shown in the exhibition is easy to understand A.7.2.2.1.5. The location of the roving exhibition is good A.7.2.2.1.6 The size of fonts on the display board is adequate
A.7.2.2.2. Negative Comments
A.7.2.2.2.1. The event or exhibition is not informative enough A.7.2.2.2.2. The event or roving exhibition is not generally well-organized A.7.2.2.2.3. The graphics on the display board are not realistic A.7.2.2.2.4. The information shown in the exhibition is difficult to understand A.7.2.2.2.5. The location of the roving exhibition is not good A.7.2.2.2.6 The size of fonts on the display board is too small
A.7.2.2.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.2.2.3.1. More information can be mentioned in the event or exhibition A.7.2.2.3.2. Physical models of the designs can be displayed in the roving exhibitions A.7.2.2.3.3. Videos can be shown in the roving exhibitions A.7.2.2.3.4. The roving exhibitions can be held in more locations A.7.2.2.3.5. More explanation from the promoters can be provided A.7.2.2.3.6. The display board in the roving exhibition can be bigger A.7.2.2.3.7. More topics on urban planning can be included in the roving exhibition
A.7.2.3. Video
A.7.2.3.1. Positive Comments
A.7.2.3.1.1. The videos are of good quality A.7.2.3.1.2. The videos explain the ideas of the entries clearly A.7.2.3.1.3. The length of the videos is adequate
A.7.2.3.2. Negative Comments
A.7.2.3.2.1. The videos are of bad quality A.7.2.3.2.2. The videos do not explain the ideas of the entries clearly A.7.2.3.2.3. The length of the videos is too long
A.7.2.3.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.2.3.3.1. The videos can be embedded in the online questionnaire A.7.2.3.3.2. The competitors can involve more in making the videos A.7.2.3.3.3. A short introduction can be added to the videos A.7.2.3.3.4. The language used for narration differs from one video to another video
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 88
A.7.2.4. Website
A.7.2.4.1. Positive Comments
A.7.2.4.1.1. The size of the images and text on the website is adequate A.7.2.4.1.2. It is easy to review and compare the entries on the website A.7.2.4.1.3. It does not require too long to load the images on the web pages
A.7.2.4.2. Negative Comments
A.7.2.4.2.1. The size of the images and text on the website is too small to read A.7.2.4.2.2. It is not easy to review and compare the entries on the website A.7.2.4.2.3. It takes too long to load the images
A.7.2.4.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.2.4.3.1. Users should be allowed to choose the entry they would like to view on the website A.7.2.4.3.2. More text description about the entries can be provided
A.7.2.5. Promotion Approach
A.7.2.5.1. Positive Comments
A.7.2.5.1.1. The public engagement process has proper promotion
A.7.2.5.2. Negative Comments
A.7.2.5.2.1. The public engagement process lacks of adequate promotion
A.7.2.5.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.2.5.3.1. More promotion can be done in general A.7.2.5.3.2. More promotion can be done on mass media (e.g. TV, newspapers) A.7.2.5.3.3. More promotion can be done on the Internet A.7.2.5.3.4. More promotion can be done through mobile apps
A.7.2.6. Effectiveness
A.7.2.6.1. Positive Comments A.7.2.6.2. Negative Comments A.7.2.6.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.2.7. Stakeholders
A.7.2.7.1. Positive Comments
A.7.2.7.1.1. The public are well involved
A.7.2.7.2. Negative Comments
A.7.2.7.2.2. The public are not well involved
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 89
A.7.2.7.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.2.7.3.1. The public can be involved more in the PE A.7.2.7.3.2. The professionals can be involved more in the PE A.7.2.7.3.3. The residents living in the surrounding area can be involved more in the PE A.7.2.7.3.4. The young people can be involved more in the PE A.7.2.7.3.5. Tourists can be involved more in the PE
A.7.2.8. Other Views on Public Engagement Exercise
A.7.2.8.1. Positive Comments
A.7.2.8.1.1. The public engagement process is generally well organized
A.7.2.8.2. Negative Comments
A.7.2.8.2.1. The public engagement is meaningless
A.7.2.8.3. Neutral Comments
A.7.2.8.3.1. More public engagement activities can be held A.7.2.8.3.2. The opinions collected through the PE should be considered carefully A.7.2.8.3.3. Souvenirs should be given to the participants of the PE
A.8. Other Miscellaneous Issues
A.8.1. KTF's Management Issues
A.8.1.1. Management and Operation A.8.1.2. Strategic Positioning of KTF
A.8.1.2.1. Target users of KTF should not be tourists only A.8.1.2.2. The current positioning of KTF is inadequate A.8.1.2.3. Target users of KTF should include tourists A.8.1.2.4. The positioning of KTF should not overlap with the WKCD A.8.1.2.5. The whole Kai Tak approach channel should be included in the KTF project
A.8.2. Any Other Opinions (which cannot be categorised)
Table C Node Classification
C.1. Entries C.1.1. Entry A - WATERLAND, WONDERLAND! C.1.2. Entry B - The Rising Landscape C.1.3. Entry C - Kai Tak 2.0 Healthy Lift Off C.1.4. Entry D - Dragon Park
Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 90