BULLERES
Pedestrian bridge linking Prince's Building and Mandarin Hotel one example of multi-level circulation
field Barracks site which is now to be developed and about which there is some argument that it should become a complete playground or park?
Wong: There is without a doubt not enough open space in Hong Kong. Our future planning should bear this very much in the forefront. But let us remember that we in Hong Kong have something that is quite unique. We have so far housed four million people in something like 33 sq. miles only and we have produced a metro- polis which in visual terms has a cer- tain degree of unity. We have, above all, this wonderful arrangement that we can get out of the city within ten or twenty minutes. I would personally like to see Hong Kong more or less contained within its present limits. There are bound to be more vertical developments but we must be more careful how we lay them out.
We must remember that Chinese people by tradition and habit like to live close to one another, but not this close. The future planning of Hong Kong could do a great deal of good if we could redevelop our existing areas, not in a lineal fashion but in a cellular fashion.
Fawcett: Won't this mean razing a tremendous amount of property? There has in the past been a patch- work of building and to carry out the sort of open development which has been mentioned would mean flattening very large areas.
Wong: We must create these open spaces within the urban area to a scale that we understand: i.e, a human scale. We haven't got to have vast open spaces. We must have open spaces where they are needed and where we will use them. As an exam- ple, take the poor man's night-club on the waterfront. There is an open space and look how we use it. We use it in a very Chinese way a very human scale.
44
•
•
in
On the positive side of town
planning I would like to see both the Whitfield Barracks and the Naval Dockyard left open as parks because this is our last opportunity in Hong Kong. There is not an example in the world where there are such lovely open spaces situated in the middle of the city. Let us keep them open. We will never be able to do this again.
Fitch: I disagree with Mr. Wong where a part of the Naval Dockyard is concerned the area which is nearest the cricket club. I think that Hong Kong needs development there, whether it be Government or other- wise, and I think it could very well form what everyone hopes for in Hong Kong an auditorium that would provide cheap entertainment for the mass of people who cannot afford the City Hall. That area handled properly as an extension of the Cen- tral District could be developed, but then Mr. Wong's open space idea should be carried out on the next much larger site between the new flyover and the police headquarters.
What I would urge is that some- thing be done about it now. People need this open space. I am not sug- gesting a Statue Square full of foun- tains and detail, but grass and open space does not cost a fortune and I think that a really firm programme should be carried through.
I think a reason given why nothing has been done about the Naval Dock- yard project is that it is not yet known where the tunnel terminus on Hong Kong side for buses etc. will be, and it has been suggested that the dock- yard might be the place. It seems to me that the tunnel at the present time is rather a dead duck.
come
Fawcett: I would like 10 back to the question of transportation later. Mr. Fitch, you are president of the Hong Kong Society of Architects and you have just made something of an appeal. How can you get your idea over? How can you get your fel-
low architects to support you in put- ting forward Q concrete plan to Government?
Fitch: I think this has been tried in the past. A plan has been worked on but it is very difficult to get this past first base.
Wong: Yes, we did have a group within the Society of Architects which produced a basic thesis stressing the need for more open space and for containing the twin cities. Kowloon and Victoria, within their present limits. We do need to improve what we have within our cities because we have learned of all the social disad- vantages associated with suburban de- velopment as carried out overseas.
In Hong Kong we have a fixed boundary. We have a given amount of open space in the New Territories and the islands and we cannot have any more. If we use up these open spaces for suburban development it would be quite wrong. We should concentrate on improvements within our city areas, being careful of our planning details.
Fitch: I support Mr. Wong on this. But what I and many architects would like to know now is: What is happening to our urban renewal pro- gramme?
I understand that a full report was produced a considerable time ago. This is where the future of Hong Kong lies, if we can select areas in Western District, etc. and really I would like to see the plan these. Government come down from its ivory tower and meet with reputable development companies such as Hong Kong Land Investment and see if, in conjunction with them, some scheme cannot be worked out which would be economically viable.
I think this is where the Dockyard went wrong. It was not based on economics. We do not want Hong Kong to spread, as Mr. Wong said, but we have vast areas of slum land which given the proper treatment of urban renewal could save our building industry and make available more development and more housing of the type most needed. There is a great need for a cheaper form of flat which people could buy.
Urban renewal is a very, very worthwhile thing which we should be going into with all speed. This is our immediate problem how to convert our four-storey slum areas into pleasant modern metropolis.
a
Fawcett: Mr. Haffner, we have been talking of transforming four- storey blocks into 50-storey blocks. This obviously provides problems for the dwellers. Do you see it as a feasible project for the future?
Haffner: I think it is quite feasible. I cannot really understand the argu- ments of people who say that 50- storeys is too high. I have not tried it but I imagine that living 50-storeys above ground can be little different from living 20-storeys high. Psy- chologically. I don't think that the greater height would have any effect on me. In fact I believe that it would
Far East Architect & Builder January, 1968
Page 30Page 31