CB(1) 921/04-05(02), 21 February 2005, pp.2–3, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr04-05/chinese/panels/plw/
papers/plw0222cb1-921-2c.pdf.
21
See Development Bureau, ‘Chronology of Events Relating to Central Reclamation Phase III’, www.devb.
gov.hk/reclamation/tc/basic/chronology_of_events/central_chronology/t_index.html.
22
Hong Kong Legislative Council, ‘Item for Public Works Subcommittee of Finance Committee’, Paper
No. PWSC(2009-10)53, 10 June 2009, p.1, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr08-09/chinese/fc/pwsc/papers/
p09-53c.pdf.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 311 20/08/2018 16:48
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 312
Source: Development Bureau, ‘Central and Wan Chai Reclamation’ (last updated 23 March 2012), http://www.devb.gov.hk/reclamation/filemanager/TC/content_29/project_pop.htm.
Figure 6.3 Central and Wan Chai Reclamation
20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 313
Table 6.5 Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront
Site Location Design concept
Site 1 Adjoining Central Pier Nos A civic node and a mixed-use precinct primarily for
4 to 6 public enjoyment, including two blocks of +25 mPD*
for retail, restaurant and exhibition uses.
Site 2 North of the Two ifc A civic node and a mixed-use precinct primarily for
public enjoyment, including one iconic block of +60
mPD* for cultural, retail, restaurant, entertainment,
tourism, government, institution or community (GIC)
uses and festive activities. Additional 1.5 commercial
floors above Central Pier Nos 4 to 6; extensive
landscaped deck and public open space of 1.7 ha for
greening, open space and festive events.
Site 3 North of Statue Square Retail and office developments. Larger landscaped
deck with enhancement to pedestrian connections
and visual permeability. More at-grade open space
with street activities. Reconstruction of Star Ferry
Clock Tower at original location.
Site 4 North of City Hall Waterfront-related commercial and leisure uses
with a theme of ‘Harbour Place’. Small and separate
building blocks with intimate courtyard spaces.
Alfresco dining and restaurants.
Site 5 North of CITIC Tower Two blocks for hotel and office uses on a landscaped
podium. Possible additional office development south
of Site 5 of approximately 21,000 metres gross floor
area (GFA) being explored.
Site 6 West end of the Hong Kong Waterfront-related commercial and leisure uses with
Convention and Exhibition a marine theme. Further improvement to pedestrian
Centre New Wing connectivity.
Site 7 Waterfront promenade Waterfront promenade. A hybrid of ‘urban park’ and
‘urban green’ concepts; additional alfresco dining
within the area.
Site 8 Adjoining Central Pier Nos 9 Reassembly of Queen’s Pier by the harbour and
and 10 refurbishment of Central Pier Nos 9 and 10.
Improved design of Ferry Plaza.
Note: mPD: metres above Principal Datum.
Source: Planning Department, Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_
study/comp_s/UDS/chi_v1/home_chi.htm.
handover. In 2000, the Central District (Extension) OZP No. S/H24/2 was
approved by the CE in C. It designated the Central waterfront area under various
land use zonings, including ‘open space’ (‘O’) and ‘other specified uses’ (‘OU’)
zones, with a straight line annotated ‘military berth (subject to detailed design)’
along the coastline. In 2002, the government sought funding approval from the
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 313 20/08/2018 16:48
314 · MAKING HONG KONG
Legislative Council for the Central Reclamation project, including funds for con-
struction of the military dock. According to the relevant LegCo document, the
Hong Kong Garrison agreed in principle to open the area of the military dock site
to the public when it was not in military use. According to planning and urban
design proposals of the UDS, the military dock site should be designed to inte-
grate with the new waterfront promenade and the open area within the dock and
would be open to the public when it was not in use. When the military dock was
closed for military use, the public could use the pedestrian walkway to the imme-
diate south of the dock area as an east–west connection along the waterfront. The
design concept of the military dock (including its access to the Central Barracks
to its south) was revealed to the public through public engagement activities of
the UDS, and was reported to the Legislative Council at the end of 2009.
Briefings were given about the Advance Promenade of the new Central
Harbourfront, including the architectural design of the military dock, at meet-
ings of the Central and Western District Council as well as of the Harbourfront
Commission’s Task Force on Harbourfront Developments on Hong Kong
Island (HKTF) in May and October 2010 respectively.23 As the detailed design
and delineation of the military dock had been confirmed and the construction
works were in their final stages, the Planning Department, in accordance with
the usual practice, proposed to the TPB to make amendments to the OZP
on 25 January 2013 to reflect the final delineation and the land use of the
military dock.24 On 15 February 2013, the Draft Central District (Extension)
OZP No. S/H24/8 was exhibited for public inspection under section 7 of the
Town Planning Ordinance. The amendments mainly included the rezoning of
a strip of waterfront site to the north of the People’s Liberation Army Hong
Kong Garrison Headquarters from ‘O’ to ‘OU’ annotated ‘military use (1)’
(‘OU(MU)1’).25 During the two-month exhibition period and the three-week
publication period, a total of 9,815 representations and 9,242 comments were
received respectively. In the LegCo Paper No. CB(1)1077/12-13(03) submit-
ted to the LegCo Panel on Development for consideration on 28 May 2013
regarding the amendments to the Central District (Extension) OZP in rela-
tion to the Central Military Dock (CMD), it was pointed out that the CMD
would be handed over to the Garrison for management as a military facility
after completion of the construction works and the relevant procedures.26
23
Planning Department, Town Planning Board Paper No. 9491, for consideration by the Town
Planning Board on 4 November 2013, Hong Kong, October 2013, http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/9491_
attachments/9491_final_main_paper_eng.pdf.
24
Planning Department, Metro Planning Committee Paper No. 3/13, for consideration by the Metro
Planning Committee on 25 January 2013, Hong Kong, January 2013, http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/pape
rs/MPC/482-mpc_3-13.pdf.
25
Town Planning Board, ‘G.N. 778: Town Planning Ordinance (Chapter 131) – Amendments to
Draft Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan No. S/H24/7’, Government Gazette, Hong Kong
Government, Volume 17, No. 7, 15 February 2013, https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20131707/cgn20
131707778.pdf.
26
Hong Kong Legislative Council, ‘Amendments to the Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan
in Relation to the Central Military Dock’, LC Paper No. CB(1)1077/12-13(03), 28 May 2013, http://www.
legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/chinese/panels/dev/papers/dev0528cb1-1077-3-c.pdf.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 314 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 315
From 4 November 2013 to 14 February 2014, the TPB conducted a hearing to
consider the representers’ and the commenters’ views on the draft OZP.27 At
the same time, representatives of the Central Harbourfront Concern Group
organised a ‘Citizen Town Planning Board’ meeting at the G/F lobby of North
Point Government Offices to solicit public views on the rezoning of the Central
Harbourfront to a military dock with a view to consolidating and submitting
views collected to the TPB for consideration. On 14 February 2014, after giving
consideration to the representations and comments, the TPB decided not to
propose any amendment to the draft OZP but agreed to make amendments to
the Explanatory Statement of the draft OZP regarding the ‘OU(MU)1’ zone to
indicate that the Garrison had agreed that it would open the area of the CMD
site to the public as a part of the promenade when it was not in military use.28
The above decision was mainly based on two principles. The first was the his-
torical background of the project. The proposed use of the site as a military dock
originated from the 1994 Sino-British Defence Land Agreement. Since 1998,
the Hong Kong government has annotated the location of the military dock on
the OZP according to the prevailing situation. In 2002, the government applied
to the Legislative Council for funding and was given approval for the related
construction works, including the construction of the military dock and related
facilities. In 2014, as the delineation of the dock and related works entered the
final stage, the amendments to the draft OZP were then proceeded with. Given
the historical background, the OZP was amended to reflect the final boundary
and the use of the military dock.
Second, it was considered that members of the public had always had the
opportunity to participate in the planning process. The location of the dock had
already been marked on the OZP when amendments to the OZP were initiated
in 1998. Since the boundary was not yet determined at that time, it was marked
as a straight line annotated ‘military berth (subject to detailed design)’. The
CE in C approved the relevant OZP in 2000. There was also an opportunity for
public participation when the Legislative Council approved the funding applica-
tion in 2002. During the public engagement activities of the UDS in 2008–2010,
the government indicated the location and conceptual design of the military
dock as well as its future integration with the new Central Harbourfront. In
2010, the government also introduced the CMD design at meetings of the
Central and Western District Council and the HKTF.
On 14 February 2014, the Concern Group voiced its opposition to the gov-
ernment’s rezoning of the new Central Harbourfront as a military dock site. On
5 March 2014, the Concern Group mobilised members of the public to express
their aspiration directly to the CE in C and request the dedication of the har-
bourfront to the people.29 As citizens had various views on the zoning of more
27
Hong Kong Daily News, 12 November 2013, p.A04.
28
‘Full Text of the TPB Chairman to Meet with the Media’, Press Releases, 14 February 2014, http://www.
info.gov.hk/gia/general/201402/14/P201402140683.htm.
29
Central Harbourfront Concern Group, ‘Press Release’, http://www.savecentral.hk/260323286231295-
press-releases.html.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 315 20/08/2018 16:48
316 · MAKING HONG KONG
than 30,000 square feet of area at the Central Harbourfront as a permanent
military site, the Central Reclamation project has been affected. On 7 May 2014,
Designing Hong Kong, one of the representatives, applied to the High Court for
judicial review with a request to overturn the TPB’s decision to amend the OZP
for the CMD. As of mid-May 2018, the judicial review is still pending, and the
relevant statutory planning procedures have yet to be completed.
Collective memories
Demolition of the Star Ferry Pier and the Queen’s Pier
Efforts made by the HEC did not reduce the public enthusiasm about preserving
Central landmarks, while the demolition of the Star Ferry Pier and the Queen’s
Pier even raised awareness of defending historical buildings. On 20 September
2006, the LegCo PLW Panel held a special meeting to discuss the planning issues
relating to the reprovisioning of the Star Ferry Pier in Central. The meeting was
also intended for the exchange of views with community groups regarding the
preservation of the building structure and clock tower of the existing Star Ferry
Pier. After the meeting, the Panel urged the government to defer the demolition
of the Star Ferry Pier and its clock tower, and to incorporate, upon extensive
public consultation, the existing clock tower together with the relevant build-
ing structures into the future new development plan for Central, with a view to
preserving, on a people-oriented basis, the historical traces that formed part of
the collective memory.
In a written response on 11 October of the same year, the administration
reiterated that public works directly affecting the Star Ferry Pier, including
Road P2, the Airport Railway Extended Overrun Tunnel and an existing drain-
age box culvert at Man Yiu Street, should be carried out pursuant to awarded
contracts as planned and that the Star Ferry Pier should be demolished as
scheduled. In a press release issued on 12 December, the government pointed
out that the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB), which was mainly respon-
sible for the grading and preservation of antique buildings in Hong Kong,
had reviewed the discussion papers and records in 2002 regarding the dem-
olition plan for the Star Ferry Pier and expressed no objection to the plan.
Accordingly, the demolition of the old Star Ferry Pier commenced on the same
day. Although a minimum number of years of history for a building is not a
statutory requirement for its declaration as a monument under the Antiquities
and Monuments Ordinance, there was still a more conservative view in the early
twenty-first century that a post-war building, i.e. one with a history of less than
50 years, would be of lower value compared with a pre-war building. People
holding that view would rarely take into account the historical connection with
the city, the use of public space and social values when determining the signifi-
cance of a historical building, which was substantially different from the opin-
ions of the general public intending to preserve the Star Ferry Pier. People held
demonstrations at the construction site to protest against the demolition of
the building structures and clock tower. They regarded the Star Ferry Pier as a
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 316 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 317
tribute to general daily life and social movements after the Second World War,
thus having its social value.
On 23 January 2007, the PLW Panel discussed with deputations and the
administration proposals to relocate the Queen’s Pier. Organisations includ-
ing Hong Kong People’s Council for Sustainable Development, the Hong
Kong Institute of Architects, Community Cultural Concern, the Hong Kong
Federation of Students and Designing Hong Kong Harbour District all sup-
ported the in-situ preservation of the Queen’s Pier. The government maintained
that a statutory planning process would be necessary for Road P2 realignment to
provide for in-situ preservation of the pier, since the alignment had already been
specified in the relevant approved OZP. Any changes to the alignment of Road
P2 would affect the related land use. Members of the Panel generally agreed that
there was no immediate need to construct Road P2; therefore they suggested
further discussions on the technical aspects of the preservation.
From March to April 2007, the government held four meetings with four pro-
fessional bodies, namely the Association of Engineering Professionals in Society,
the Conservancy Association, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects and the
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, to prudently study four feasible options of
preservation. On 9 May 2007, the AAB rated the Queen’s Pier as a Grade 1 his-
torical building. According to the AAB’s internal guidelines, the Grade 1 status
referred to ‘buildings of outstanding merit, which every effort should be made to
preserve if possible’. However, the grading system was the AAB’s internal mech-
anism and carried no statutory status. The grading by AAB did not affect the
decision to demolish the Queen’s Pier. In a press release by the government on
23 May 2007, Dr Patrick Ho, then Secretary for Home Affairs, and on behalf of
the Antiquities Authority, remarked that, having thoroughly considered all rel-
evant factors and information, he had decided that Queen’s Pier did not possess
the requisite historical, archaeological or palaeontological significance for it to
be declared a monument under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance.30 It
was essentially the same as the practice in 2006, when the value of the Star Ferry
Pier was determined based on its years of history.
In May and June 2007, the government planned to keep the retainable
components of the Queen’s Pier for future reinstatement at the new Central
Harbourfront. The most suitable site for relocation would be identified, with
the participation of professional bodies and the general public, under the UDS
being undertaken by the Planning Department. Final recommendations by the
UDS included relocating the Queen’s Pier between Central Pier Nos 9 and 10 to
revive its pier function, as well as refurbishing Pier Nos 9 and 10 to integrate with
the reassembled Queen’s Pier. Besides, memorial elements should be added at
the original site of the Queen’s Pier to commemorate its historical significance.31
30
‘Government Decides Not to Declare Queen’s Pier a Monument’, Press Releases, 23 May 2007, http://
www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200705/23/P200705230240.htm.
31
Planning Department, Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront: Information Digest, Hong
Kong, Government Logistics Department, July 2011, p.17, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/
comp_s/UDS/eng_v1/images_eng/pdf_paper/info_digest.pdf.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 317 20/08/2018 16:48
318 · MAKING HONG KONG
The controversies over the reclamation projects show that the public had
strong aspirations to maintain the existing historical buildings and values of
Hong Kong society. The government would be alienating itself further and
further from the public if it continued to emphasise only economic benefits and
engineering needs.
The Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier were just the tip of the iceberg. Central
used to be the core of Victoria City, with a lot of buildings of historical value. On
the other hand, Central was in dire need of commercial and office space. After
the handover, historical conservation had become a reason for objection to the
government’s demolition of historical buildings, which made it impossible for
the government to implement the idea of vacating space for new development
by demolishing old buildings. Larger historical buildings with a higher rede-
velopment value in Central included the Central Police Station Compound,
which was declared a statutory monument in 1995, and the West Wing of
Central Government Offices, which escaped from being demolished and devel-
oped thanks to the public’s aspiration to maintain the historical building. (See
Figure 6.4.)
Central Police Station Compound
The Central Police Station (CPS) Compound included three buildings: 1)
Victoria Prison, built in 1841. It was the first Western building constructed of
durable material in Hong Kong. It was seriously damaged by bombing during
the Second World War and was reopened in 1946 after repairs. 2) The Central
Magistracy. The construction commenced in 1913 and was completed in 1914.
The building was of majestic appearance, with imposing pillars on the facade
and other features in the Greek-revival style. The massive retaining walls were
constructed with granite blocks. The Central Magistracy was closed in 1979
and had been used by different associations affiliated with the police.32 3) The
Central Police Station, which included the three-storey Barrack Block built in
1864 (with a storey added in 1905), the four-storey Headquarters Block com-
pleted in 1919, and the two-storey Armoury constructed at the north-west end
of the parade ground in 1925. The Compound represented the rule of law as the
basis of governance of the city, symbolising the mutual independence and inter-
dependence of law enforcement, judiciary and punitive branches.33 Therefore,
the Compound was declared a statutory monument in 1995 according to the
1976 Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53).
In early 2004, the government intended to invite the private sector to protect,
restore and develop the CPS Compound into a heritage tourism attraction, by
means of open tender. In June of the same year, the Ho Tung family offered
to spend 500 million dollars to convert the monument into a heritage and art
32
Antiquities and Monuments Office website, http://www.amo.gov.hk/b5/monuments_54.php, http://
www.amo.gov.hk/b5/monuments_55.php.
33
Central Police Station Revitalisation Project website, http://www.centralpolicestation.org.hk/ch: /
historic-cps/index.asp.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 318 20/08/2018 16:48
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 319
Source: Hong Kong Planning Department, Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront: Information Digest, Hong Kong, Planning Department, July 2011, p.3, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/comp_s/
UDS/chi_v1/images_chi/OI04.jpg.
Figure 6.4 Scope and key sites of the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront
20/08/2018 16:48
320 · MAKING HONG KONG
exhibition centre or an educational centre, to be operated in a non-profit-mak-
ing manner. The proposal gave rise to much public discussion. Some citizens
and volunteers, including university lecturers, lawyers, doctors, social workers
and district councillors,34 concerned about the future development of monu-
ments in the Central and Western District, established the Action Group on the
Protection of the Central Police Station Historical Compound.35 The Action
Group, together with other community organisations, proposed giving equal
consideration to non-commercial and commercial means in the development
in the CPS Compound. They also suggested that, apart from the emphasis on
economic and tourism benefits, more emphasis should be placed on community
interests such as public access as well as integration with and improvement to
the surrounding areas.
In April 2007, the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) proposed a donation
in kind to support the capital cost for renovation and development of the CPS
Compound, as well as meeting the management and maintenance cost for the
initial years of operation, as a gift for the public to celebrate the tenth anniversary
of the establishment of the HKSAR.36 On 10 October 2007, the Chief Executive
announced in his Policy Address the acceptance of the HKJC’s 1.8 billion Hong
Kong dollars revitalisation proposal.37 The government would retain the owner-
ship of the conserved Compound, while the HKJC would operate the revitalised
facilities based on a tenancy agreement with the government. From October
2007 to April 2008, the HKJC carried out a six-month campaign of public
engagement by consulting different stakeholders through various channels and
activities. It also commissioned Purcell Miller Tritton, a British firm of conserva-
tion architects, to undertake a comprehensive study and to prepare a conserva-
tion management plan.
In October 2010, the HKJC proposed the preservation of 15 historic build-
ings and F Hall, as well as the addition of the Old Bailey Wing to house gallery
spaces and the Arbuthnot Wing to house a multi-purpose venue and central
plant.38 The revitalisation works started at the end of 2011.39 The gross floor area
after revitalisation would exceed 25,000 square metres, including 54 per cent as
commercial for retail and catering activities and 46 per cent as non-commercial
for arts and cultural facilities.40 Restoration of the antique buildings would be
34
Action Group on the Protection of the Central Police Station Historical Compound, ‘Open Letter to the
Chief Executive’, http://www.hkumag.hku.hk/cps/action/action05.pdf.
35
Action Group on the Protection of the Central Police Station Historical Compound website, http://
www.hkumag.hku.hk/cps/action.html.
36
Development Bureau, ‘Gist of Hong Kong Jockey Club’s Proposal of Adaptive Re-use of the Central
Police Station (CPS) Compound’, Antiquities Advisory Board Paper No. AAB/33/2007-08, November 2007,
p.1, http://www.aab.gov.hk/form/AAB_Paper131_police_annexa_c.pdf.
37
‘Revitalising Historic Buildings’, in 2007–08 Policy Address, 10 October 2007, http://www.policyad
dress.gov.hk/07-08/chi/p51.html.
38
Conserve and Revitalise Hong Kong Heritage website, http://www.heritage.gov.hk/tc/conserve/
central.htm.
39
‘SDEV’s Speaking Notes (Works Policy Areas) Tabled at LegCo Finance Committee Special Meeting’,
Press Releases, 7 March 2012, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201203/07/P201203070230.htm.
40
Development Bureau, ‘Gist of Hong Kong Jockey Club’s Proposal of Adaptive Re-use of the Central
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 320 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 321
carried out in stages, from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of
2016.41 In the paper submitted to the Economic Services Panel of the Legislative
Council, the government considered it necessary to restrict the development
to non-profit-making purposes. It maintained that, as long as a proper balance
on the weighting regarding the premium and qualitative aspects was struck, the
adoption of a proposal both financially sustainable and beneficial to the com-
munity would be guaranteed.42 The redeveloped CPS Compound, together with
the Government Hill, the Dr Sun Yat-sen Museum, the Sun Yat-sen Historical
Trail, the Central School, Man Mo Temple and Tung Wah Hospital nearby,
would help shape Central into a cultural area with unique local characteristics.
Central Government Offices
The preservation options announced by the administration from 2007 to 2010
regarding the West Wing of the Central Government Offices (CGO) were dif-
ferent from those preferred by conservation groups. Later on, the administration
revised the original options in line with public views, so that the conservation
work could better respond to public aspirations. The decision to preserve the
West Wing reflected the fact that the key to dispute resolution lay in the balance
between urban development and collective memories of public space.
In 2005, the government started implementing the Tamar Development
Project and relocating the CGO, originally extending from Lower Albert Road
to Ice House Street via Battery Path, to Tamar Site in Admiralty. As a result,
conservation became a major concern. In February 2009, the government com-
missioned Purcell Miller Tritton, a British firm of conservation architects, to
assess the historical and architectural value of the CGO. The firm concluded
that the Main Wing had the highest historical and architectural value, followed
by the East Wing, with the West Wing being of a lower value. It recommended
that the Main and East Wings should be preserved for alternative purposes,
while the West Wing could be demolished for redevelopment. It suggested that
any new development should either respect the footprint and height of the exist-
ing buildings or be restricted to the western edge of the site. It also recom-
mended extending the St John’s Cathedral garden over a wider area to provide a
green link between Battery Path and the Government House Gardens.43 In the
2009–10 Policy Address delivered on 14 October 2009, it was recommended
that the Main and East Wings, which were of historical and architectural value,
be preserved for use by the Secretary for Justice after the relocation of existing
bureaus to the new Central Government Complex at Tamar. As for the West
Police Station (CPS) Compound’, Antiquities Advisory Board Paper No. AAB/33/2007-08, November 2007,
pp.1–2, http://www.aab.gov.hk/form/AAB_Paper131_police_annexa_c.pdf.
41
Central Police Station Revitalisation Project website, http://www.centralpolicestation.org.hk/ch/news-
resources/news/news.asp?date=26 September 2014.
42
Ming Pao, 5 November 2004, p.D06.
43
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Redevelopment of West Wing of Former
Central Government Offices’, 28 June 2011, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/chinese/panels/dev/papers/
dev0628cb1-2207-8-c.pdf.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 321 20/08/2018 16:48
322 · MAKING HONG KONG
Wing, which had little heritage value, it was recommended it be demolished and
redeveloped for commercial use. And the land stretching from Lower Albert
Road to the business area via Battery Path would be developed into a low-den-
sity site for public use.44
In a press release issued on 14 June 2012, the then Secretary for
Development, Carrie Lam, announced the reasons for demolishing the
West Wing as follows: 1) to construct a public open space in Central; 2) to
improve the footpaths and road space nearby; 3) to construct modern Grade
A office buildings for financial, legal or non-governmental organisations; and
4) to enhance the greenery from Lower Albert Road to Battery Path and
Queen’s Road Central. In the eyes of the general public, the CGO was an
important part of the Government Hill, with the Main, East and West Wings
connecting and coordinating with each other.45 The West Wing accommo-
dated the Office of Members of the Legislative Council, as well as depart-
ments in charge of public affairs.46 In 1961 the new Public Enquiry Service
of the Information Services Department was established in the building,47
with a positive image, and shared with the community the use of its lifts and
canteen,48 which reflected the characteristics of the rule of the colonial gov-
ernment after the Second World War.49 For the above reasons, the proposed
demolition of the West Wing drew much public attention to the conservation
of the Government Hill. On 23 November 2011, the AAB decided to ask its
expert panel to accord priority to assessing the heritage value of the CGO and
to make a grading recommendation.50 In May 2012, the expert panel recom-
mended rating the Main and East Wings as Grade 1 historical buildings and
the West Wing as Grade 2. However, it suggested that the three buildings as
a complex could be rated as Grade 1.51 On 13 June 2012, the International
Council on Monuments and Sites, the International Union of Architects and
Docomomo International made the unusual move of issuing a global ‘conser-
44
2009–10 Policy Address website, http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/09-10/chi/docs/policy.pdf.
45
Hong Kong Annual Departmental Report by the Director of Public Works for the Financial Year 1953–54,
Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1954, pp.4–5.
46
According to Hong Kong Government Telephone Directory of 1970, the government departments which
were located in the West Wing included the Audit Department (13/F), Urban Council and Urban Services
Department (Administration) (12/F), Registrar General’s Department (11/F), Inland Revenue Department
(10/F), Treasury (8/F) and Civil Aviation Department (5/F); on the other hand, the Public Services
Commission (5/F) was in the East Wing.
47
At that time, the office of the Information Services Department was located at Beaconsfield House.
48
https://plus.google.com/112492395498279121929/posts/3xbXq8KA6N3.
49
‘Adequate provisions of lifts at the Ice House Street entrance will provide good means of access to the
offices for persons approaching from the city.’ Hong Kong Annual Departmental Report by the Director of Public
Works for the Financial Year 1950–51, Hong Kong, Government Printer, 1951, p.2.
50
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Redevelopment of West Wing of Former
Central Government Offices’, 28 June 2011, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/chinese/panels/dev/papers/
dev0628cb1-2207-8-c.pdf.
51
Antiquities Advisory Board Historic Buildings Assessment Panel, ‘Notes of Meeting of the Historic
Buildings Assessment Panel on 31 May 2012 about the Heritage Assessment of the Post-1950 Former Central
Government Offices (CGO)’, 31 May 2012, www.amo.gov.hk/form/notes_of_panel_meeting_20120531.
pdf.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 322 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 323
vation warning’ calling international attention to the West Wing of the CGO
that the Hong Kong government proposed to demolish.52
Prior to an AAB meeting on the morning of 14 June 2012, the then Secretary
for Development, Carrie Lam, publicly announced the necessity for demolish-
ing the West Wing, together with the following modifications to the original
plan:
1. The West Wing site would no longer be rezoned as a ‘comprehensive
development area’ as previously proposed. Instead, the existing ‘govern-
ment, institution or community (G/IC)’ areas would be retained to reflect
both public and semi-public uses.
2. Instead of land sale, the ‘build–operate–transfer’ (BOT) mode would be
adopted to invite private sector participation. The contract period would
be 30 years at the maximum. The developer should construct new build-
ings and public open space at its own expense. Immediately upon the com-
pletion of works, it should transfer to the government the public open
space, as well as governmental and community space within the building,
i.e. the G/IC gross floor area, so that the government could manage it and
assign it to non-governmental agencies. Upon the expiration of the con-
tract, the developer should return to the government the entire site and
the related building, so that the government could retain the ownership of
the West Wing site.
3. The urban design of the project would be enhanced. The exterior design,
external walls and choice of materials, among other aspects, should feature
government participation, to ensure harmony with the historical ambi-
ence of the entire site.
On the afternoon of the same day, 17 AAB members attended the meeting
and unanimously rated the entire CGO a Grade 1 historical building. By con-
trast, eight members supported a Grade 1 rating for the West Wing and eight
others supported a Grade 2 rating. Eventually, Bernard Chan, Chairman of
the AAB, cast a decisive vote in support of the Grade 2 rating. A one-month
period of public consultation ensued.53 During the consultation period, former
Secretary for Works Michael Wright and former Chief Secretary David Akers-
Jones advised the government to conserve the Government Hill as a whole and
not to demolish the West Wing. There were also 6,000 signatures collected from
the public in support of the preservation. On 17 December 2012, another AAB
meeting was held to review the West Wing rating, which eventually accorded
the Grade 1 status to the West Wing, the same as the East and Main Wings, with
12 votes in favour of the Grade 1 rating, 8 votes in favour of the Grade 2 rating
and 2 votes in abstention.54
52
Oriental Daily News, 14 June 2012, p.A06, http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20120614/00176_037.
html.
53
The Sun, 15 June 2012, p.A06, the-sun.on.cc/cnt/news/20120615/00407_022.html.
54
Wen Wei Po, 18 December 2012, http://paper.wenweipo.com/2012/12/18/HK1212180039.htm.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 323 20/08/2018 16:48
324 · MAKING HONG KONG
On 4 December, Secretary for Development Paul Chan announced the gov-
ernment’s decision to reuse the West Wing, which would be preserved and reno-
vated for use by the Department of Justice and law-related, non-governmental
organisations. Secretary for Justice Yuen Kwok-keung also remarked that the
reuse of the West Wing would allow the Department of Justice to consolidate its
offices in the Queensway Government Offices and the rented ones in commer-
cial buildings nearby. Besides, the Hague Conference on Private International
Law decided to set up its Asia Pacific Regional Office in Hong Kong, which
would help attract more international legal organisations as well as arbitration
and mediation institutions to set up offices in Hong Kong, thus establishing the
competitiveness of Hong Kong as an international arbitration and mediation
centre.55 The reuse of the West Wing of the CGO added another historic build-
ing in Central.
Revitalisation of historic buildings
The public enthusiasm for the preservation of historic buildings was greater than
the Government expected, which was very much related to the emphasis on the
self-identity of the Hong Kong people after the handover.
In 2007, the Planning Department issued Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision
and Strategy: Final Report, making a statement on the heritage conservation
policy. The report stressed that the government would ‘protect, conserve and
revitalize as appropriate historical and heritage sites and buildings through rel-
evant and sustainable approaches for the benefit and enjoyment of present and
future generations’ and that, ‘in implementing this policy, due regard should be
given to development needs in the public interest, respect for private property
rights, budgetary considerations, cross-sector collaboration and active engage-
ment of stakeholders and the general public’.56 In the 2007–08 Policy Address,
the Chief Executive even stated:
Cultural life is a key component of a quality city life. A progressive city treasures its
own culture and history along with a living experience unique to the city. In recent
years, Hong Kong people have expressed our passion for our culture and lifestyle.
This is something we should cherish. In the next five years, I will press ahead with
our work on heritage conservation.57
The conservation of the CPS Compound shows that the government has
become more proactive in promoting heritage conservation since 2007.
55
‘Opening Remark by Secretary for Development for the Press Conference on the Issues of Central
Government Offices West Wing and Ho Tung Gardens’, Press Releases, 4 December 2012, http://www.info.
gov.hk/gia/general/201212/04/P201212040534.htm; ‘Opening Remark by Secretary for Justice for the
Press Conference on the Issues of Central Government Offices West Wing and Ho Tung Gardens’, Press
Releases, 4 December 2012, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201212/04/P201212040567.htm.
56
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Progress Report on Heritage Conservation
Initiatives’, 26 February 2013, p.1.
57
2007–08 Policy Address website, http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/07-08/chi/p49.html.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 324 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 325
According to the government conservation policy announced in 2007, project
proponents and relevant works departments for all new capital works projects
would be required to consider whether their projects would affect sites or build-
ings of historic or archaeological significance. If the answer was affirmative,
then a Heritage Impact Assessment would be required. Mitigation measures
should be devised and the public should be engaged.58 The said policy came into
effect as from 1 January 2008. The Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO),
founded in 1976, conducted a comprehensive survey on buildings completed
before 1950 across the territory between 1996 and 2000, and recorded 8,800
such buildings. Between 2002 and 2004, in response to public requirements
for the conservation of antique buildings, the AMO selected 1,444 buildings of
higher heritage value,59 and graded them based on their historical value, archi-
tectural features and community functions. As of 4 March 2015, the AAB had
graded 1,307 buildings, including 169 as Grade 1 historical buildings, 349 as
Grade 2 and 483 as Grade 3, in addition to 288 buildings with a nil grade status.
Besides, 18 buildings were demolished or rebuilt during the assessment period.
As at May 2015, there were a total of 108 declared monuments in the territory.60
The government invited non-profit-making organisations to run social enter-
prises in historical buildings for the sake of adaptive reuse.61 It also provided
appropriate incentives to facilitate the conservation of privately owned his-
toric buildings.62 Besides, the government offered to carry out repair and res-
toration works of declared monuments, or items deemed by the government
to be monuments under private ownership. Starting in 2008, the government
expanded the scheme to also assist owners of private graded historic buildings
to carry out repairs and regular maintenance works. On 25 April 2008, the gov-
ernment created the post of Commissioner for Heritage, who provides a focal
point for the government’s heritage conservation work, and local and overseas
networking.
In the 2009–10 Policy Address, the government proposed initiatives for
‘conserving Central’, including:
1. sites 1 and 2 adjacent to the Central piers: to reduce the development
density and to open up public space along the waterfront for recreational
and cultural uses;
2. the Central Market: to remove it from the Application List and hand it
over to the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) for conservation and revi-
talisation, as this would make the market an ‘urban oasis’ for white-collar
58
Conserve and Revitalise Hong Kong Heritage website, http://www.heritage.gov.hk/tc/heritage/conser
vation.htm.
59
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Development, ‘Progress Report on Heritage Conservation
Initiatives’, 28 April 2009, p.3.
60
Antiquities and Monuments Office website, http://www.amo.gov.hk/b5/monuments.php.
61
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs, ‘Built Heritage Conservation Policy’, 20
December 2007, p.2.
62
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs, ‘Built Heritage Conservation Policy’, 20
December 2007, p.2.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 325 20/08/2018 16:48
326 · MAKING HONG KONG
workers in the daytime and a new gathering area for locals and tourists in
the evenings and at weekends;
3. the original site of the Central School: to draw up a plan for the renovation
of the two former police quarters blocks, and to invite interested organisa-
tions and enterprises to submit proposals for operating creative industries;
4. the Central Police Station Compound: to entrust the Hong Kong Jockey
Club with the conservation and the initial operation;
5. the Central Government Offices: to preserve buildings of historical value;
6. Murray Building: to recommend converting it into a hotel through open
tender; and
7. the Court of Final Appeal: to conserve the building of the Missions
étrangères de Paris as a declared monument, after the relocation of the
Court of Final Appeal to the existing Legislative Building.
As noted in the 2007–08 Policy Address, the government launched the
Revitalising Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme,63 allowing non-
governmental organisations to apply for adaptive reuse of government-owned
historic buildings. The scheme was intended to preserve historic buildings and
put them to good and innovative use, to transform them into unique cultural
landmarks, to promote active public participation in their conservation, and to
create job opportunities at the district level.64 In addition to the Revitalising
Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme, the government cooperated
with the HKJC and the URA in revitalisation and conservation.65 There were 16
historical buildings revitalised in 2008–2014. The details of their conservation
are specified in Table 6.6.
On 9 January 2015, the AAB completed the policy review on the conserva-
tion of historic buildings and proposed four focal points:66
1. to set up a dedicated fund on the conservation of built heritage, for the sake
of funding public education and publicity activities, academic research,
public engagement and consultation programmes;
2. to offer prevailing incentives such as relaxation of plot ratio and land
exchange through a more systematic mechanism, for the sake of promot-
ing adoption of ‘performance-based’ alternative approaches by owners of
historical buildings in related revitalisation works;
3. to conserve and protect selected building clusters with unique heritage
value under the ‘point–line–plane’ approach; and
4. to arrange thematic surveys or mapping exercises on building clusters with
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs, ‘Revitalising Historic Buildings through
63
Partnership Scheme’, 20 December 2007, p.1.
64
Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs, ‘Revitalising Historic Buildings through
Partnership Scheme’, 20 December 2007, pp.1–2.
65
‘Opening Remarks by Secretary for Development at the Press Conference on Heritage Conservation
Work’, Press Releases, 14 June 2012, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201206/14/P201206140459.htm.
66
‘Antiquities Advisory Board Releases Report on Policy Review on Conservation of Built Heritage’, Press
Releases, 19 January 2015, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201501/09/P201501090533.htm.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 326 20/08/2018 16:48
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 327
Table 6.6 Details of the revitalisation scheme of 16 historic buildings (2008–2014)
Year Batch of Year built Grading Name of the historic New use after revitalisation NPO in charge
revitalisation building
scheme
2008–09 Batch I 1902 Grade 2 Old Tai O Police Station Tai O Heritage Hotel Hong Kong Heritage Conservation
Foundation Ltd
1920–1930 Grade 3 Fong Yuen Study Hall Fong Yuen Study Hall – Tourism Social Service Department, Yuen Institute
and Chinese Cultural Centre cum
Ma Wan Residents Museum
1921–1924 Grade 3 Lai Chi Kok Hospital Hong Kong Cultural Heritage Hong Kong Institution for Promotion of
Chinese Culture
1931 Grade 1 Lui Seng Chun Hong Kong Baptist University Hong Kong Baptist University
Chinese Medicine and Healthcare
Centre – Lui Seng Chun
1960 Grade 2 North Kowloon Magistracy SCAD Hong Kong Campus SCAD Foundation (HK) Ltd
1954 Grade 2 Mei Ho House Mei Ho House as City Hostel Hong Kong Youth Hostel Association
2009–10 Batch II 1899 Grade 1 Old Tai Po Police Station The Green Hub for sustainable Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden
living Corporation
The Blue House Cluster: Viva Blue House St. James’ Settlement (joint applicants:
1923–1925 Grade 1 – Blue House; Community Cultural Concern and
1922–1925 Grade 3; – Yellow House; Heritage Hong Kong Foundation Limited)
1956–1957 Nil grade – Orange House
1937–1957 Grade 3 Stone Houses Stone Houses Revitalisation Wing Kwong So-Care Company Limited
Scheme (joint applicant: Wing Kwong Pentecostal
Holiness Church Limited)
20/08/2018 16:48
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 328
Table 6.6 (continued)
Year Batch of Year built Grading Name of the historic New use after revitalisation NPO in charge
revitalisation building
scheme
2011–12 Batch III 1933–1935 Grade 1 Haw Par Mansion Haw Par Music Farm Aw Boon Haw Foundation (cooperating
organisation: HKAM Foundation Limited)
1953 Grade 3 Bridges Street Market Hong Kong News-Expo Journalism Education Foundation Hong
Kong Limited
1960 Grade 3 Former Fanling Magistracy Hong Kong Federation of Youth Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups
Groups (HKFYG) Institute for
Leadership Development
2014 Batch IV 1949 Grade 3 No.12 School Street Tai Hang Fire Dragon Heritage Tai Hang Residents’ Welfare Association
Centre
1887 Grade 1 Old Dairy Farm Senior Staff Pokfulam Farm Caritas–Hong Kong
Quarters
1933 Grade 2 Lady Ho Tung Welfare Lady Ho Tung Welfare Centre Sik Sik Yuen (cooperating organisation:
Centre Eco-Learn Institute IMC of Ho Koon Nature Education cum
Astronomical Centre)
Source: Conserve and Revitalise Hong Kong Heritage website: https://www.heritage.gov.hk/tc/rhbtp/about.htm.
20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 329
heritage value for drawing up appropriate conservation strategies and pro-
tection measures if necessary and for future planning.
By 2015, conservation of historic buildings and monuments was no longer
just about sporadic cases. Instead, the related policy featured systematic plan-
ning to give play to the economic role of such heritage. Clusters of monuments
with local characteristics are city landmarks. But, more importantly, permanent
preservation of Hong Kong’s history and culture are synchronised with the city’s
overall economic development.
Reconstruction and conservation
Since Hong Kong’s return to China, the city has been facing a number of prob-
lems, such as the outbreak of avian influenza, the increasing number of new
arrivals from the Mainland, the SARS epidemic, the movement to protect
Victoria Harbour, defence of heritage and historic buildings, and so on. Those
internal conflicts are even more difficult to deal with than external impacts such
as the Asian financial crisis. The Territorial Development Strategy (later renamed
the Territorial Development Strategy Review) endorsed by the Executive Council
on 24 February 1998 alone would not be adequate as the guidelines for Hong
Kong’s development after 2000, nor would it be sufficient to cope with the ever
changing social development needs. The long-term planning of Hong Kong
needs to be adapted to public aspirations, with efforts to improve domestic gov-
ernance and to stabilise public confidence. Only by so doing can we keep tabs
on the latest global developments and identify new goals of long-term develop-
ment. Hong Kong is not only a major city of China, but also an important inter-
national city in Asia, having the same prominent status as New York in North
America and London in Europe.
The 2030 planning objectives
At the beginning of 2000, the Planning Department reviewed the policy on
long-term planning and conducted the study of Hong Kong 2030: Planning
Vision and Strategy (Hong Kong 2030) for the city’s long-term development
in the following three decades from a new perspective. Although the study still
focused on the formulation of long-term strategies on land use, transport and
environmental protection, as guidelines for Hong Kong’s future development
and strategic infrastructure,67 it also proposed new ideas to assist the govern-
ment in meeting the community’s expectations for town planning. The Inception
Report of Hong Kong 2030 was published in 2001, followed by public con
sultation as usual, which lasted seven long years, before the Final Report was
completed in 2007.
67
Hong Kong Planning Department, Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Inception Report,
Hong Kong: Planning Department, 2001, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/comp_s/hk2030/
chi/inception.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 329 20/08/2018 16:48
330 · MAKING HONG KONG
The Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy: Final Report published
in 2007 takes sustainable development as the main planning objective, instead
of just being trend-based, so as to turn Hong Kong into ‘Asia’s World City’.
Related focuses include: 1) providing a good-quality living environment by
ensuring that development is undertaken with due regard to the environmen-
tal carrying capacity, enhancing the townscape and regenerating the old urban
areas; 2) conserving the natural landscape which is of ecological, geological, sci-
entific and other significance and preserving the cultural heritage; 3) enhancing
Hong Kong’s hub functions by setting aside sufficient land reserves to meet the
changing needs of commerce and industry; 4) meeting housing and community
needs by ensuring timely provision of adequate land and infrastructure for the
development of housing and community facilities; 5) providing a framework
to develop a safe, efficient, economically viable and environmentally friendly
transport system; 6) promoting arts, culture and tourism to ensure Hong Kong
continues to be a world-class destination with a unique cultural experience for
visitors; and 7) strengthening links with the Mainland to cope with the rapid
growth of cross-boundary interaction. With the concepts of ‘do more with less’
and ‘quality over quantity’, the report concentrates on three broad directions
of development, namely providing a quality living environment, enhancing
economic competitiveness and strengthening links with the Mainland. Hong
Kong 2030 focuses on the planning of ‘sustainable growth’. Related strategies
lay emphasis on optimising available development opportunities, leveraging on
the existing urban infrastructure, reusing or recycling the old urban fabric, and
being prudent in opening up greenfield land for development.
To achieve those seven objectives, the Hong Kong 2030 planning framework
lists specific strategies as follows:
1. Developing information technology and its implications for land use: When
formulating development strategies and response plans, priority will be given
to the assessment and consideration of IT development trends, high-tech and
high-value-added industries, and their implications on the land use demands,
with an aim to facilitate the future growth of information technology.
2. Exploring development opportunities in the New Territories: The potential
development capacity of the New Territories will be assessed to explore
key constraints in development, such as the lack of infrastructure and dif-
ficulties in land assembly owing to fragmented ownership, together with
possible solutions. These opportunities will be prioritised for reference in
formulating development options.
3. Predicting population growth and housing land demands: It is necessary
to assess the implications for the future population growth of Hong Kong
relating to children of Hong Kong residents born on the Mainland, and to
assess housing land demands based on different assumptions about popula-
tion growth. The target population is set at 10 million or above, which will
serve as the basis for planning to meet land and infrastructure needs. In
addition, changes in the age structure will be taken into account and prob-
lems of population ageing will be evaluated.
M4593-HO_9781788117944_t.indd 330 20/08/2018 16:48
Transformation after the return to China (1997–2015) · 331
4. Considering the needs for port and other major infrastructure facilities: The
Third Port Development Strategy Review (1998) proposed the construction
of Tonggu Waterway, with new port facilities located in Tuen Mun West.
Future planning will take into consideration the findings of the Study on
Port Back-up and Land Requirements (2000), the Feasibility Study for
Additional Cross-border Links (2000), the Third Comprehensive Transport
Study (1999) and the Second Railway Development Study (2000). For
the planning of port facilities, attention will be paid to the implications of
intermodal transport links for the further development of Hong Kong as a
transport hub in the Asia-Pacific region. Efforts will be made to fully review
and examine the future requirements for major infrastructure facilities of
territorial significance, such as waste-to-energy incinerators, sludge incinera-
tors, other major sewage and waste treatment and disposal facilities, prisons,
crematoria, and major territorial public transport facilities and highway and
railway networks. Potential locations will be carefully selected to ensure their
coordination and compatibility with adjoining land uses.
5. Promoting the construction of tourist attractions and the preservation of
heritage: The tourism industry is one of the traditional economic strong-
holds of Hong Kong. It is necessary to consolidate existing tourist facilities
and plan for new tourist attractions. Such facilities should be of different
sizes and be based on the city’s unique East-meets-West characteristics.
They should consist of not only individual tourism projects but also dis-
trict- or area-based tourist attractions. A broad physical planning strategy
for tourism and supporting facilities will be formulated, so as to maintain
Hong Kong as a key tourist destination for visitors from the Mainland, from
other Asian countries and from the rest of the world.
6. Facilitating socio-economic integration with the Mainland: In order to
ascertain the impacts of development on Hong Kong and its Mainland
counterpart on both sides of the boundary, and to capitalise on the possible
opportunities arising from the development of the Mainland, it is recom-
mended that the following aspects are studied: patterns of cross-boundary
travel; trends of Hong Kong residents residing on the Mainland; socio-
economic development trends in Guangdong Province and the implica-
tions on strategic planning in Hong Kong; spatial development patterns
in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region, particularly the respective roles of
major cities such as Guangzhou, Zhuhai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong; the
positioning of Hong Kong in the regional development of the PRD and the
strategic planning implications; the need for additional cross-links; the fea-
sibility of providing housing and social facilities on the Mainland for Hong
Kong residents; tourism and recreational developments in the PRD and