Page 67 of 174
97
26
96
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
ADDRESS BY CHAIRMAN
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Ladies and Gentlemen, it is now 4 o'clock. Council will please come to order.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 12th July, 1977 and the minutes of the Special Session for the visit of the Lord Mayor of London, held on 12th August, 1977 were confirmed.
(Mr. BERNACCHI arrived at this point.)
STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN
The making of a better city
CHAIRMAN (in English):-Much choice land is being given up by the Armed Forces. In recent years, some large tracts have been relinquished progressively. Rightly attracting the most attention at present is the area now occupied by Victoria Barracks. Perhaps its splendid central location makes the importance of its future use so patent to all. It stands strikingly there. Hence, how it is to be laid out and developed is of public consequence.
case.
Social needs and environmental considerations must predominate when determining how public land should be zoned for use in each. This concept may be novel here. And, judging by results, it does not seem to have exerted much influence as yet. Besides, it is not likely to find ready acceptance where the unfettered pursuit of money is the national sport in which the public authorities are said also to be running strongly. The stakes are high; the odds are that much of the land will be put up for auction in due course when the heat is off. Certainly, a government's fundamental social responsibility to the community for the proper use of its fast diminishing land resources is called to account in any enlightened society as a matter of course. Here, reaction used to be generally feeble and objections mostly set aside. But, the mood is changing. Even now, the new generation can be seen standing in the wings waiting impatiently to have its say.
The recommendations of a government planning committee appear, by and large, to ignore that the people now expect a better-planned
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
city altogether. Perhaps it was working according to the instructions in its terms of reference. Instead, it should have turned its inherent sensibly back on any such directives manifestly contrary to the genuine interests of the city and its people. Had the committee done so, the people would have acclaimed its public-spirited stand. But, in the event, it was not so. Predictably, the planners prescribe the mixture as before. Little regard is given to public recreational requirements and none to environmental improvements. To compound its dis-service, the committee recommends setting aside a large part for government departmental buildings which should be located logically where the directorate and staff would be able to rub shoulders with the ordinary citizen whose interest they are engaged to serve. Moreover, with tongue in cheek, unless perhaps unwittingly, it proposes to site there another huge building for the new Supreme Court. Perhaps it succumbs to the constant claim that justice has to be seen to be done all the time. Surely, if this is to be believed, justice would more easily achieve its visual purpose elsewhere, such as it might do in the midst of a well-populated district. Is there a compelling reason for depriving the common people of the free use of prime land in the city centre to secure the majesty of the law?
There are now 41.5 acres in all. The planning committee sharpens its knives. First, it carves out a choice piece of 8.6 acres to be served to the Government. Next, true to form, 11.9 acres are cut out to be sold for private development. The pretext is that a vast sum of money has to be raised to reimburse the exchequer for the cost of acquiring all that land. Anyway, more bits and pieces are then sliced off, about 5.2 acres in all, for roads and other access requirements. Finally, when nearly down to the bone, a passing thought is spared for the common man. He will be left with only a total of 15.8 acres as open space. It is believed that this is less than at present. Even so, is this land of much practical use to him? To start off, Flagstaff House grounds take up 5.8 acres in this tally. And, much of the other 10 acres consists of wooded hillsides which must be preserved as such at all cost. So, what is there actually left for his recreation? Little or nothing. Will the people stand idly by while this prime public land is carved up for all time in this retrogressive way?
Instead, should not the whole site be turned into a green park and made a pedestrian precinct too? If the authorities disagree, let them argue their case publicly. Let them tell the people why they are usurping such an admirable location to put up their own buildings when there is already a large vacant space nearby, actually a step across the road from Cotton Tree Drive. It has no better use at the
Page 67 of 174
97
26
96