1977 — Page 57

Page 57 of 174

Page 57 of 174

78

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

reply, Mr. Chairman, is it correct that the recommendations of the Antiquities Board were put before the Committee of the Whole Council on 3rd May this year and that the Standing Committee, by a majority vote, rejected the recommendations and the Director of Urban Services was instructed to convey this decision to the Government? And were you aware, Mr. Chairman, and through you, was Mr. FORSGATE aware, that at that meeting, the Director of Urban Services, so far as I recollect, did not inform the Standing Committee that he had arranged an appointment the following day, that is 4th May, with the Hong Kong Heritage Society, which was long before the Governor's decision?

MR. FORSGATE (in English):-Mrs. ELLIOTT is correct that the Standing Committee had quite an extensive debate on the subject of retaining the facade and the clocktower, but referring to the minutes of the debate it would appear that the retention of the facade got rather lost because next of the debate seemed to have centred on the retention of the clocktower. The facade, as Mrs. ELLIOTT said, was agreed to be demolished by a majority of 16 to 2 and likewise, the clocktower, but fortunately for some of the exponents of the clocktower that has been saved pro-tem by the Governor's decision. The rest of what Mrs. ELLIOTT said, I am not aware of.

MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, if Mr. FORSGATE is not aware that the Hong Kong Heritage Society had applied to see the Director before that time, then it is not correct that they made their first representations on 27th May, and if Mr. FORSGATE is not sure I have a copy of the record of the meeting which took place on 4th May between the Director of Urban Services and the Heritage Society. And as Mr. FORSGATE admits he did not even know there was going to be such a meeting, does that not indicate, Mr. Chairman, that something went wrong that we were not put in the picture of what the Heritage Society had been asking for?

MR. FORSGATE (in English):—Mr. Chairman, the question really resolves on the design of the Cultural Complex, not on whether the Heritage Society did or did not on such a date make a representation. In 1974, in fact going back before that, in 1968 Government made a decision to demolish the Kowloon Canton Railway Station on the deci- sion to transfer the station to Hung Hom. The Urban Council was informed that the Government would take over the erection of a Cultural Complex and it was announced and preliminary plans were designed by the previous Director of Public Works in 1974. In December 1974 I think our first model of the Cultural Complex was put on display, long before the Heritage Society was even a gleam in any local architects

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

79

eye, which as far as I know, was only last year, when somebody came here from the U.K. and thought it was a great idea. I think it is a great idea, but the point to remember is that the Cultural Complex is designed on a portion of Tsim Sha Tsui. It has all been worked out.

Any interference with the planning now would set the whole thing back a number of years and most of us should know that there are as many ideas as there are architects in this world and the great problem is to suffer from paralysis of analysis and not do anything. The decision has been made by the Government who after all are paying for the erection of the Cultural Complex to go ahead with the design in accordance with the requirements of the Urban Council cultural ambi- tions in Tsim Sha Tsui, which are 2 auditoria. If the idea of retaining the facade on which there is argument at this moment, not the clock- tower, on which there is no argument, then that would effectively cut off part of the triangle on which the main auditorium is to be erected and put the whole thing back indefinitely, at least for 2 or 3 years, which no one in the Urban Council, at least a very few anyway, and certainly no one in the Government planning side, is prepared to accept. I have rather gone on a bit, but it seemed to me the answer required fuller explanation.

MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):—Mr. Chairman, was Mr. FoRSGATE aware that long before the Hong Kong Heritage Society spoke up about this, Mr. John PRESCOTT had already written to you and to the Council as far back as June and October 1975, asking that architects should be given the opportunity of offering other kinds of plans that would not require the demolition of the railway station. Did Mr. FORSGATE know about that?

MR. FORSGATE (in English):-Well, Mr. John PRESCOTT, who is sitting in the gallery, is a very old friend of mine actually, and I am fully aware of Mr. PRESCOTT's views on architecture because we worked together in commercial projects in the past. But be that as it may, I have very high regard for his architectural ability, let that be said now, but you know, someone has got to design the job. The job is being done by the Government Architectural Office. Their view is that what- ever the antiquarian value of the facade of the railway station is, there is absolutely no architectural merit in retaining it in the design which they have worked for the Cultural Complex, Q.E.D. We have now got a Cultural Complex which the design has been worked on, is going to the working drawing stage, and we must not do anything to change it now, to keep a lot of old red bricks in Tsim Sha Tsui in perpetuity.

MRS. ELLIOTT (in English):-Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that Mr. FORSGATE is saying that we Urban Councillors who are not