...../7
Z
theek * Prigodek
1.
k)
It is our opinion and the opinion of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Town Planning Institute that the present planning legislation is totally inadequate for the Colony's needs and we believe that it is necessary to introduce a planning pro- cess which affords better opportunities for the public to par- ticipate at all levels.
This Society's sketch plan was prepared with the advice of qualified traffic engineers who, with the Society, believe that the full integration of the various transportation sys- tems is of great importance. We understand that our petition was not presented to the Transport Department for their comments.
1) It states that "it is the view both of the Government and of the Urban Council that a scheme which includes this building would result in a less pleasing and less practical cultural complex. This is tantamount to saying "My taste (i.e. the Government's and the Urban Council's) is better than yours." It is not a reason for demolishing the KCR building.
m) It also states (paragraph 10) "The principal significance for
the public of the railway station building is felt to be its familiarity as a landmark. This role will be assumed in due course by the new cultural complex."
This argument could equally well be used in support of demoli- tion of Egypt's Pyramids, Peking's Forbidden City, London's Big Ben, and St. Peter's in Rome. These, like the KCR building, are more than mere 'landmarks'. They have a place in people's lives, as part of their history and culture. They help provide the environmental continuity which is psychologically important to societies, and individuals in those societies. They help foster a sense of belonging, warmth and pride. These factors are increasingly appreciated in richer countries where arguably they are less important than they are in a rapidly growing and over-congested community like Hong Kong.
Paragraph 10 continues: "..." It is not considered that the former railway station building possesses overriding merits which would justify its declaration as a monument under Section 3 of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Chapter 53)".
This, is a bureaucratic deceit. By whom is it not considered to have overriding merits? The expressed opinion of the' Antiquities
+
*
.../7