/?
rights on the adjacent site were increased, the new building could be constructed to the same area without any decrease in profitability; and leave the Club building intact.
This should have all parties happy, but it has been suggested that this solution is not acceptable on the grounds. that a dangerous precedent would be established.
However, whilst it is agreed that establishing development precedents should be treated with caution, in this issue the converse applies. If a precedent could be established whereby plot ratios could be increased on adjacent properties ONLY to save buildings of architectural merit or places or objects of historic interest, then the ongoing development of Hong Kong would benefit greatly. There is no danger here.
It is suspected that precedent is not the root of the problem. A PWD Architect delegate to the recent Consevation of Historic Structures Seminar arranged by the York Institute of Advance Architectural Studies, stated that the Hong Kong Government's policy was not to retain old buildings. (It is interesting to note that the delegate attended the seminar specifically to leam how to document historic buildings and if this relates to the dismantling/rebuilding of the Law Court building this is extremely commendable and augurs well for a possible reprieve of the decision to demolish the Hong Kong Club. )
If the Government policy is as stated at York then why is Hong Kong different to all other cities. The pressure of big business and uncertainty of lease renewal is no excuse for those persons with authority to shirk their responsibilities. Without the past there can be no present or future. Without evidence of the past a city becomes a weird megapolis, without roots, without heritage, without meaning. Whether past eras are viewed favourably or not restoring and preserving buildings of architectural merit is an essential Town Planning principle fundamental to the development of cities throughout the world.
can be
An advantage in this instance an uncommon in the usual acquisition of private property, is that Hong Kong Club obtained for minimal cash outlay. Furthermore the building has tremendous potential commercially.
It is suggested that building become a series of speciality restaurants, but incorporating a museum of Hong Kong history, together with Public agencies such as the Marriage Registration office. In this manner the project would be profitable but moreso would become a living museum of Hong Kong's heritage accessible and able to be enjoyed and appreciated by the citizens of Hong Kong.
Those responsible or empowered to save the building must act now to ensure that future generations are aware of Hong Kong's history and not deprived from living and working in a city where the urban fabric is enriched with some historic continuity.
As the United Kingdom, with its awareness of tradition, has some responsibility in this matter, copies of this letter have been forwarded to HRH Queen Flizabeth II and the Governor of Hong Kong.
Yours faithfully
Murray Cockburn B.Arch. (Hons) A.R.I.B.A.
the Home Secretary
A.N.Z.I.A.