Return to fragrant harbor

After decades focused as a target for land reclamation and proptery development Hong Kong's famed harbor appears on the verge of being given back to the people, as a cultural asset to stand for future generations.迷你倉 Timothy Chui writes. The last big reclamations in Victoria Harbour are nearly completed; the last of the projects approved before the government was slapped with a court-ordered, nearly total ban on harbor reclamation in 2004. Land reclamation fell from favor when it became apparent the city's iconic harbor was in danger of becoming reduced to a mere shipping channel. Nearly a decade since the harbor was acknowledged to have greater value as a cultural asset than as a gold mine for property developers, the government is asking Hong Kongers, who should be the custodian to safeguard the city's most recognizable landmark for the future? The current exercise stands in stark contrast to government policy of more than a decade ago when reclamation was the engine that drove the planning process. Furthermore, the case for naming a single body to act as custodian over the 73-kilometer harbor front is aptly demonstrated by the fact that no fewer than 10 government departments have jurisdiction today. Development and maintenance are scattershot, redundant and uncoordinated. Plans must be submitted to the Town Planning Board (TPB), which is inadequate for handling the complications of development and harmonizing of Victoria Harbour, says Winston Chu, a former member of the board and a premier harbor activist. Chu made the initial proposal for a single harbor authority. He had been instrumental in bringing the court case that stopped the rampant reclamation in the harbor nearly a decade ago. "Making land from the harbor was very profitable. After the 'Save Our Harbor' Campaign and many court challenges, the then chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen finally said no more reclamations in 2008. Since 2003, I've been calling for a separate authority — a harbor authority — to look after both the harbor and harborfront, based on Sydney's model," Chu told China Daily. "The TPB is overworked. I know. I spent 8 years on it. There was a bundle of paper more than a foot thick every Friday. You need a separate body. All over the world it has been shown that the harborfront needs special attention. You need a special organization to have an overall view. Harbor planning is different from the other work of the TPB, like developing the New Territories," he said. Top-level body needed He advocates a top-level body holding overall strategic planning authority over the entire area, and superior even to the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA). "We need wiser and better people than I to run it. May be a retired judge. We need a fair and honest person. It should be a local. There is the specter of the Harborfront Authority becoming another TPB — all government appointed members. A rubber stamp body," Chu said. He says membership in the authority must reflect a collaborative approach to harbor planning: representative of the institutes, environment groups, and the other major stake holders, with those groups able to nominate representatives. "Nominations from the various groups will make the board genuinely representative of the people," Chu said. The body should also include representatives from the LegCo Development Panel and Development Bureau. After the publically nominated candidates are vetted, the government should still have the final say in making the appointments, he said. The planning system between 1997 and 2004 was a legacy from colonial times which reached back to 1841. The government had overwhelming power to make policy and had a monopoly in planning resources. The decision to reclaim large swaths around Tsim Sha Tsui, Wan Chai and Central were made by bureaucrats, with little or no input from society at large. The establishment of the Harborfront Enhancement Committee (HEC) in 2004 was a watershed event on the way to creating a more participatory strategy for the harbor. It included members of the business sector, planners, architects, the Tourism Board and conservationists, all of whom shared policy-making authority with the government. After the court-imposed test for land reclamation projects was initiated, a succession of advisory bodies formed by the government has reversed the preference for development of the harbor for saleable land into a new focus that sees the harbor as a cultural asset. Differences between harbor conservationists and government planners have narrowed nearly 10 years after the original battle lines were drawn over harbor preservation. Christine Loh Kung-wai, who was the first deputy chairperson of the Society for the Protection of the Harbour, now sits as under secretary for t儲存e environment. When the HEC mandate expired, authority passed to the Harborfront Commission, whose membership includes district council representatives. Commission chairman, Nicholas Brooke, says the central authority as proposed by Chu is quite necessary if it is to deliver the kind of planning, design, and operational management required of a world-class waterfront. The proposed oversight authority, which is likely to become a statutory body similar to the Urban Renewal Authority, will go a long way toward cutting red tape and speeding the time from planning to development from five to three years, Brooke said. Replacing an over-generalized government department holding too many responsibilities with a sole authority over cultural offerings in the harbor proved the key to the city's largest music festival, Clockenflap, staging its most successful event ever, says co-organizer Michael Hill. Hill recalls how the festival nearly went broke when it moved to the West Kowloon Cultural District in 2011. The site was still under management of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), which prohibited charging admission fees on the site. That created an enormous budget shortfall for the festival. Working with the WKCDA since the new agency took over management of the space changed things completely, Hill said. "It's an entirely different experience. They perform very different roles. The LCSD is more of a managerial body. They were responsible for managing the waterfront promenade. Their focus wasn't on attracting events or offering space for people. They were just park managers. It made it quite difficult to communicate what we wanted to do, or for them to understand what we were trying to do," he said. Rigid approach "[The LCSD's] vision wasn't far reaching. They were rigid in their approach. The LCSD has an umbrella set of internal policies which apply to all venues. They were reading from the rulebook. That was part of the issue of not being able to sell tickets. They have to maintain public access. The WKCDA is very different. They have a vision to establish a cultural district. They're really supportive of what we're doing," he said. "Clockenflap can only really happen in West Kowloon. It's West Kowloon or nothing, in our view. It's an incredible venue — noise complaints are manageable there unlike every other venue that is near residential buildings." Hill said. The decision to create a sole authority is a step in the right direction, he said. "There are ferry piers in Central ready to go. It makes perfect sense to have service running (from Central) to the WKCD. (At present),you have to run the gauntlet of the MTR and foot bridges and its 20 minutes from Kowloon station. A ferry would open up the possibilities to have a relaxed and casual afternoon there," he said. Winston Chu said, "We've been planning for water taxis. The routing, organization, landings and tendering have to be taken as one comprehensive concept. It requires a lot of coordination and strategic planning. West Kowloon is sticking out like a sore thumb. Adding sea transport cannot be wrong," he said. "We're not opposed to reclamation to make better use of the harbor, but do oppose making land for developers. The only reclamation we support will be for the public enjoyment of the harbor as a harbor," he said. Big business also has been won over to the position that the harbor front should focus on public access and not generating land for development. A study commissioned by the Harbour Business Forum conducted by Professor Bill Barron of the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology's Institute for the Environment placed the economic value of developing the harbor for public use at HK$69 billion to HK$73 billion. Barron's calculation included intangibles such as environmental benefits, commercial activities, image building, as well as recreation and tourism potentials. Merely selling the land for private development and the associated jobs would yield only about HK$8.5 billion, according to Barron. "Such a high dollar value should provide evidence to Hong Kong's decision-makers that harbor planning and development are priorities and government revenue-generating land uses may not be the best solution for the harbor front," the Forum of 124 companies and organization said. Contact the writer at tim@chinadailyhk.com [The LCSD's] vision wasn't far reaching. They were rigid in their approach. The LCSD has an umbrella set of internal policies which apply to all venues. They were reading from the rulebook." michael hill co-organizer, music festival "clockenflap" We need wiser and better people than I to run it. May be a retired judge. We need a fair and honest person. It should be a local." WINSTON CHU HARBOR PROTECTION ACTIVISTmini storage