Page 192 of 237
360
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
are inside, and not outside the Colony. I say this because Mr. FORSGATE and Mr. Raymond KAN suggested that the Housing Board was not the right body for this purpose.
Mr. FORSGATE suggested that Planning Consultants should be appointed from outside the Colony to take a fresh look at Government Housing. It is not for me to defend the Housing Board or its competence, particularly as I am a member of it myself, but at the risk of boring Members of Council I will repeat what I said at the recent Regional Conference of the Commonwealth Association of Architects. Planning to build the equivalent of a medium-sized English Town each complete with water supply, power supplies, drainage, sewerage, roads, markets, shops, schools, clinics, welfare centres, recreation facilities, fire stations, police stations, cleansing and all the things required for modern living, is a communal effort embracing almost the whole of Government and the voluntary agencies in this Colony. It requires a first-hand knowledge of conditions in the Colony and of our people and their customs. It is a human problem not a paper problem as members of this Council are only too well aware and I am not persuaded—disregarding any wish to grind axes or build empires—that planning consultants would be of much value. I am also quite certain that by the time they had been briefed, assessed the position, produced acceptable proposals which would be practicable in Hong Kong, and were ready to put them into effect, that a great deal of time, which we cannot afford to spare, would have been lost.
Mr. SALES has fears that there is a slowing-down of the Recreation and Amenities construction programme and asks to be assured that there is no cause to worry on this score. I am delighted to be able to give this assurance and illustrate it by quoting the actual expenditure on this construction programme—which has been as follows:
1965-66 12 projects costing $545,000
1966-67 15 projects costing $1,450,000
1967-68 24 projects costing $2,203,000
1968-69 25 projects costing $5,913,000
and this year 30 projects estimated to cost $7,760,000 by 31st March, 1970.
Members will note the numbers have gone up each year and the average cost per project has also risen. These figures exclude work carried out under the Urban Amenities Block Vote which will be dealt with later by the Chairman.
Other projects close to the hearts of Members of Council and mentioned specifically by Mr. SALES and Mr. Raymond KAN are a football stadium, an Indoor Stadium and a Civic Centre, all for Kowloon.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
361
I can only deal with these projects in a general fashion as they have yet to be approved by Government but a site has been provisionally reserved for a Football Stadium at Ho Man Tin which will be served by the very good road network now under construction.
In respect of the indoor stadium Members are aware that the Public Works Department has drawn up a plan which shows the indoor stadium as part of a comprehensive development over the railway when this is moved to Hung Hom. Mr. Raymond KAN has pointed out that this stadium would not be suitable as a convention centre and I agree. I do however think that it would be very suitable for the opening and closing ceremonies of large conventions. It would also provide a nucleus for a Convention Centre and I doubt if Mr. SALES supports Mr. Raymond KAN's proposal that such a centre should be built on the site of the present railway terminus as, under the approved town plan, this has been zoned for open space at the express wish of this Council.
One or two Members have raised matters concerning the Buildings Ordinance Office, some complimentary some otherwise. I welcome Mr. Raymond KAN's appreciation of the concessions which are now granted in respect of bona fide hotel developments and wish to take this opportunity of acknowledging the personal efforts he has made in this direction. My friend Mr. James Wu however wants the approval of building plans to be speeded up still further. I say still further as to the best of my knowledge the process is quicker in Hong Kong than anywhere in the world. Nevertheless in a few cases delays are now being experienced due to the need to investigate the effect upon any site for which plans are submitted, of Urban Renewal, the Long Term Road Study and the proposed Underground Railway System.
Mr. FORSGATE asked that I step into the breach of the Council's conventions, unseal my lips and tell of action on the Mass Transport Front. One of the positive acts is this scrutiny of all building plans to ensure that they will not frustrate the construction of the underground railway if this is approved. This sounds simple but in fact involves most departments of the P.W.D. in a lot of work. There are usually two or three cases a week which have to be considered in conference and I think it reflects credit on the Department that there has been only one instance when it was not possible to devise some way in which the private development could not be allowed to proceed. The exception was a site in Nathan Road for a 20-storey building and in this case Government negotiated the purchase of the lot. This indicates, I think, that Government's intentions are earnest.
Members know that after consideration of the Mass Transit Feasibility Study Government entrusted to the Consultants the next stage of the investigation, which entails more detailed engineering
37
Page 192 of 237
360
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
361
37
Page 192 of 237
360
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
are inside, and not outside the Colony. I say this because Mr. FORSGATE and Mr. Raymond KAN suggested that the Housing Board was not the right body for this purpose.
Mr. FORSGATE suggested that Planning Consultants should be appointed from outside the Colony to take a fresh look at Government Housing. It is not for me to defend the Housing Board or its com- petence, particularly as I am a member of it myself, but at the risk of boring Members of Council I will repeat what I said at the recent Regional Conference of the Commonwealth Association of Architects. Planning to build the equivalent of a medium sized English Town each complete with water supply, power supplies, drainage, sewerage, roads, markets, shops, schools, clinics, welfare centres, recreation facilities, fire stations, police stations, cleansing and all the things required for modern living, is a communal effort embracing almost the whole of Government and the voluntary agencies in this Colony. It requires a first hand knowledge of conditions in the Colony and of our people and their customs. It is a human problem not a paper problem as members of this Council are only too well aware and I am not persuaded disregarding any wish to grind axes or build empires— that planning consultants would be of much value. I am also quite certain that by the time they had been briefed; assessed the position; produced acceptable proposals which would be practicable in Hong Kong; and were ready to put them into effect, that a great deal of time, which we cannot afford to spare, would have been lost.
Mr. SALES has fears that there is a slowing-down of the Recreation and Amenities construction programme and asks to be assured that there is no cause to worry on this score. I am delighted to be able to give this assurance and illustrate it by quoting the actual expenditure on this construction programme-which has been as follows:
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
12 projects costing $ 545,000 15 projects costing $1,450,000
24 projects costing $2,203,000
25 projects costing $5,913,000
and this year 30 projects estimated to cost $7,760,000 by 31st
March, 1970.
Members will note the numbers have gone up each year and the average cost per project has also risen. These figures exclude work carried out under the Urban Amenities Block Vote which will be dealt with later by the Chairman.
Other projects close to the hearts of Members of Council and mentioned specifically by Mr. SALES and Mr. Raymond KAN are a football stadium, an Indoor Stadium and a Civic Centre, all for Kowloon.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
361
I can only deal with these projects in a general fashion as they have yet to be approved by Government but a site has been provisionally reserved for a Football Stadium at Ho Man Tin which will be served by the very good road network now under construction.
In respect of the indoor stadium Members are aware that the Public Works Department has drawn up a plan which shows the indoor stadium as part of a comprehensive development over the railway when this is moved to Hung Hom. Mr. Raymond KAN has pointed out that this stadium would not be suitable as a convention centre and I agree. I do however think that it would be very suitable for the opening and closing ceremonies of large conventions. It would also provide a nucleus for a Convention Centre and I doubt if Mr. SALES supports Mr. Raymond KAN's proposal that such a centre should be built on the site of the present railway terminus as, under the approved town plan, this has been zoned for open space at the express wish of this Council.
One or two Members have raised matters concerning the Buildings Ordinance Office, some complimentary some otherwise. I welcome Mr. Raymond KAN's appreciation of the concessions which are now granted in respect of bona fide hotel developments and wish to take this opportunity of acknowledging the personal efforts he has made in this direction. My friend Mr. James Wu however wants the approval of building plans to be speeded up still further. I say still further as to the best of my knowledge the process is quicker in Hong Kong than anywhere in the world. Nevertheless in a few cases delays are now being experienced due to the need to investigate the effect upon any site for which plans are submitted, of Urban Renewal, the Long Term Road Study and the proposed Underground Railway System.
Mr. FORSGATE asked that I step into the breach of the Council's conventions, unseal my lips and tell of action on the Mass Transport Front. One of the positive acts is this scrutiny of all building plans to ensure that they will not frustrate the construction of the underground railway if this is approved. This sounds simple but in fact involves most departments of the P.W.D. in a lot of work. There are usually two or three cases a week which have to be considered in conference and I think it reflects credit on the Department that there has been only one instance when it was not possible to devise some way in which the private development could not be allowed to proceed. The exception was a site in Nathan Road for a 20 storey building and in this case Government negotiated the purchase of the lot. This indicates, I think, that Government's intentions are earnest.
Members know that after consideration of the Mass Transit Feasibility Study Government entrusted to the Consultants the next stage of the investigation, which entails more detailed engineering
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.