Reference
This we
ipvang hay
pexplored: THC ane proceeding ; new with
another bldg. Вичев Прагу мож in corpstrike a HK.
chicles: IV is a insonable offic
gulations guisement.
with RMJM next and L&O third.
1.4 Mr Day then went on to criticise the inclusion of the TeLLY Farrell Company in the architectural selection exercise arguing that they should not have been considered since they have no and they knowledge of construction in HK having built nothing there yet, and they know nothing of designing diplomatic missions having never designed one before, (para 7 of his 8 June telex is a reference to this), unlike others namely John R Harris (in partnership with L&O) whose work he knew well from an apparent familiarity with their work dating back to his time in Qatar. He asked who would teach Farrell about diplomatic buildings and when I responded that OED would be guiding the development of the project he was generally dismissive, referring back to past (perceived) OED failures. He was clearly of the opinion that he should be taking on the development of the design with the architects himself and that OED's involvement would be largely irrelevant.
1.5 It was difficult to focus the meeting's attention onto the detail of the drawings but we got round to looking at access and security. I showed on the drawings how the perimeter could be made secure by closing gates all the way along the frontage. This he did not consider satisfactory as it would not allow key personnel and members of the business community from gaining access to the BC-G at a time of crisis. He went on to criticise OED for accepting a lease condition that limited site access to one point only. I pointed out that the Farrell solution was Security Department's preferred solution.
1.6 Mr Day was inclined to challenge every aspect of the design brief and SoR. He asked me if this building "is the JLG?" I replied that it was the new BC-G offices and any JLG presence would be assimilated. He pressed this line of questioning but I do not know to what end. He seemed to be of the opinion that the JLG were to be housed elsewhere.
1.7 We returned to issues relating to the drawings and he asked me to explain how commercial visitors accessed the building. I took him through the route which is quite separate from consular and immigration visitors but he stopped me claiming that they had to travel up the consular and immigration escalators. He was convinced they had to use the escalators. It was clear that he did not understand the drawings. We were using the large scale drawings and previously he had only seen the small scale display boards which are much harder to read. He was concerned that there was inadequate meeting and exhibition space in commercial areas, quoting the existing provision in the BTC as being ideal. I explained that the Farrell layout was flexible and could cater for this requirement.
CODE 13-77