1.
Summary of some main points coming out of the Discussion with F & C.O. representative, on
Saturday, 6th May, 1978.
The arguments put forward by the Heritage Society have been countered by the Hong Kong Government (P.W.D. through Dept. of Environment?).
It was admitted that more credibility (weight) was given to the official presentation of "facts".
N.B.
The Heritage Society has NEVER been given credible facts/arguments this is one of the MAJOR factors in the disagreement. Government in our certain knowledge has been guilty of continuing misrepresentation of the truth since 1974.
They have consistently refused to discuss the true situation face to face in technical terms, WHICH SEVERAL OF OUR COMMITTEE ARE PERFECTLY QUALIFIED TO DO.
(
-
On the one occasion when the Heritage Society anticipated an opportunity for DISCUSSION over Victoria Barracks : when we began to pose questions we were informed that "Government's" Committee was only there to listen to our case and record our comments. NO DIALOGUE ensued.
)
2
It was put to us that the Heritage Society was making a
2. case for
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Preservation (we prefer CONSERVATION) of the K.C.R. Terminal Building;
Greater participation of the public in the Town Planning process.
Conservation of the heritage of Hong Kong and greater consideration of the overall environment.
Whilst evidence of "the people's" interest in (ii) and (iii) was accepted by the F & C.0. representative, (i) was dismissed for a number of reasons, amongst these were:-
N.B.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
the representative considered the building to be monstrously ugly (it was admitted that this was entirely a personal view and that no consultation had ́occurred with any body of opinion qualified to judge such matters e.g. R.I.B.A., R.F.A.C.,
etc.)
etc.
V.S.
the representative had made a personal 'ad hoc' survey of some 200 Chinese in Hong Kong over the past 5 days, asking their comments on the 3 points above listed. This must have taken an inordinate amount of time but could hardly be a valid survey, and one does not know what alternatives or, indeed, how the 'case' was presented or "controlled". It was claimed as a result of the survey that NOT ONE PERSON asked had wished to preserve the K.C.R. Station Building although some had wished to retain the Tower.
it is too late to save the Station now. It would set back the programme for construction of the Cultural Complex by at least 2 years.
The Heritage Society reps. countered:-
with ref. to
(i).. Personal opinion is not significant and there should
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.