1984 — Page 206

372

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

place a brake on its uncontrolled increase beyond the affordability of our means. We must realize that for every capital project we approve, there is at the same time built-in hidden costs that will have to be met in the future subsequent years. It is not just the initial large sum of capital cost that we have to pay, but more importantly, a larger sum of recurrent expenditure in the years to follow. These will be in the form of staff costs to look after it, the repair cost to keep it in a state of good condition and the maintenance of the equipment to continue its proper functioning. May I stress that all these will have a snowball effect and that they tend to pile up in geometrical progressions. Such may be considered as growth and expansion of our services, but such may also prove to be a financial disaster if we have not sufficient means to fund them.

Re-think on Planning of Capital Works Programmes

In calling for a re-thinking on planning of capital works projects, I would like to outline two areas for improvement; firstly, to plan our capital works realistically and to have them completed without too much unnecessary delay, and secondly, to modify our planning standards for superscale cultural complexes so that means can be applied to satisfy needs for markets and active recreational sports grounds at the district level.

The syndrome of grandiose complexes has plagued this Council for a number of years. The planning and building of luxurious and multistorey complexes, irrespective of the district needs could have generated from the concept that land is a precious commodity in Hong Kong and that we should maximize on its use. It turned out to be false economy. It is also a half truth. It is only true when we could usefully utilize the additional floor spaces so created. To embark on a grandiose complex project will mean one or all of the following complica- tions. It will mean prohibitively high capital cost, and the ways and means to fund it. It will then mean putting off the projects until the time when the funds will at long last be available. It may mean the production of additional space that we have no urgent need for. All these will add up to delay and procrastina- tion with the projects. Many of our markets could have been completed at a much earlier date and at a much lower cost, were we contented with a simpler design and with lower rise buildings. It is natural that our DB colleagues have a lot to complain about delay and procrastination. They think that our Council is unresponsive to their needs. In fact, their needs are simple. They just want to have the facilities supplied at an earlier date to meet an urgent demand. On the other hand, our Council insists that nothing short of perfect and fully maximized land use will suffice. This is where the frustration and quarrels lie. The DB are more eager to see results and are not too much concerned about the high international standard of the project when it can only achieved after years of delay.

The planning standards have been in existence for some time, on the basis of which we plan new venues of cultural centres and markets and active recrea- tional sports grounds in our capital works programmes. It worked well before when we had practically not existing facilities to start with. But it does not

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 206 of 233

373

necessarily follow that it should not be altered to suit the changing present needs and the prevailing economic climate. Abiding by the standards so set, we have the obligation to provide, and therefore plan facilities, on the basis of the numbers of population in a district. I believe that we have reached saturation point in the demand for more cultural centres on a district basis. We may better serve the community by providing more markets, more open space and more active recreational sports grounds. Hong Kong being a small area and public transport being relatively convenient, it will not be too difficult for the people in other districts to move around to attend functions in the regional and territory cultural centres, especially when they are strategically located. With the Kowloon cultural complex under active development and others in the pipe- line, I think we have planned enough grand-scale cultural complexes. What we need now is to focus our emphasis on active recreational sports grounds and markets which, judging from district standpoint, are somewhat inadequate. Could we not have fulfilled the needs of the territory and the districts by providing more and simpler facilities so that a large portion of our ordinary public can utilize the venues for active recreational sports rather than for entertainment performances? Could we not have made some savings then applied these very savings to provide for a greater number of markets of simpler design and open space to accommodate marketing needs and casual assembly for district public functions? I believe that the number of our existing cultural venues of international standard could be equitably shared by the public from different districts and economically financed by UC without jeopardizing the overall need.

We have made the planning standards to serve us as our guidelines some time ago. We should also be responsible to amend and modify them in the light of current needs and prevailing financial stringency. We may have to modify some of our grandiose projects plans to a more modest scale and manner and on a smaller budget, so that we can keep up with the number of projects for completion without unnecessary delay. With the savings so made, and the relief on the financial burden, some of the projects ranked low in the priority lists, but keenly urged by the DB, may be brought to fruition at an earlier date. To achieve modestly is a better policy than to dream of a castle in the air.

Before closing, I would like to express my views on our Hawkers problems.

Our Hawkers policy had been changing an flagging from strict to lax. There had been no consistent policy on this matter at all. We may have reached a point when there is nothing but frustration. I can testify that there is a large body of opinion in the urban district boards that we should put some order into the chaos. They may only be permitted to operate within certain restricted and designated areas without causing nuisances and obstruction to the majority of the public.

Based on the past experiences, nothing will work, short of some concerted efforts from a number of government departments and coordinated by high ranking official with a view to a collective approach. If the government is