I
I
· 2 -
(a)
(b)
(c)
Paragraph 8(b). The architectural merits of this building are a matter of opinion and have to be weighed against the use which can be made of the site. The Antiquities Advisory Board recommended the retention of the clocktower and one facade of the building, which would not have affected the proposed layout of the cultural complex.
Paragraph 8(c). The Society does not appear to have appreciated that the clocktower as a vertical feature is an integral part of the design of the cultural complex; if it were decided to remove it, some other feature would probably have to be put in its place. Whether any effective use could be made of the station building, if this were integrated into a cultural complex is very doubtful. Its inclusion would lower the standard of facilities within the building and on the rest of the site.
The Town Planning Ordinance provides a procedure for the making of public objections to Outline Zoning Plans prepared by the Town Planning Board. The proposals for this area were gazetted in outline some years ago and were generally approved in both the Chinese and English press. What the Heritage Society would appear to be wanting is for public comment to be sought on the details of implementation at other stages, which would clearly be impracticable.
(d) Paragraph 8 (g). The removal of the Railway Terminus from Tsim Sha Tsui to Hung Hom has been widely misunderstood. The new terminus at Hung Hom is a focal point in the planned communications in Kowloon, with road and ferry connections and a bus terminus. An underground link to Tsim Sha Tsui is a possibility, but would have a different function from the old terminus. Being underground, it would not sterilise the large amount of land which is being developed along the old railway alignment. The criticism in the sub-paragraph is highly subjective and does not reflect any widespread public "cynicism".
(e) Paragraph 9. I have commented on the matter
of public opinion above.
(f) Paragraph 16(a). See paragraph 3 above.
/(g) ....