1990 — Page 64

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

Page 64 of 95

120

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

no matter how much publicity work we do and how many concessions we give, it will not help to improve the situation. So my fourth question is: can the Urban Council seriously consider drastic improvement to the theatre?

MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, very frankly Mr. FAN is right. I am afraid I cannot give you an answer right away. Mr. FAN, I am sure with his experience will know that the answer should not be difficult to find. Regarding the fourth question, in 1986, we also considered whether there could be drastic improvement works to be done to the theatre. If my recollection serves me correct at that time, it seemed that the only way to do so would be to demolish the theatre completely. After demolition, what is to be built is another matter, but of course the question of finance is the major consideration. We all know that a lot of expenses have to be spent on cultural centres, civic centres and museums. If Members think that there is a lapse of five years since 1986 and next year is the election year, probably it is worthwhile to discuss this issue again and my Committee will be most willing to do so.

DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, among the many drawbacks of the Ko Shan Theatre, heat is only one of the problems, but rain is a more important one. Because in case of rain, two-thirds of the seats will be rendered unusable and it has always been the source of anxiety and uncertainty for the potential hirers. Of course, in case of rain, two-thirds of the seats will be unusable. I was a party to the discussion in the 1986 review; one of the options suggested was to have the uncovered part covered by a dome shell, in the form of a dome in Toronto, which we visited two years ago. So, the question I would like to ask is: whether the Council will reconsider this possibility to cover the uncovered part, so that the audience will be kept away from rain and the whole place can be air-conditioned? I disagree that the building should be totally demolished and reconstructed. A little modification, just as I mentioned, to make a dome to cover it, the dome may possibly be movable, and this is technically possible, as proved in Toronto. So, the question I ask is whether the Council will reconsider this possibility?

MR. LO KING-MAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, as I remember, even this was among one of the possibilities considered. It was very interesting to later know that on the opening night of the Toronto dome, it didn't work and it was raining. The audience had to suffer a wet night. But I understand that more recently, that dome now works, so maybe Dr. LEUNG has had a more fortunate experience than the opening night audience there. Nevertheless, the basic fact is that everything, as far as a committee paper is concerned, is possible. But I believe that this actually is a very expensive exercise because probably if you want to introduce a mechanism of that kind, the present structure itself would not be sufficient to accommodate the folding dome materials. Anyway, as I said, since so many Members seem to be extremely interested in this particular location in the Kowloon City, Hung Hom area, maybe it is worth the Committee to resuscitate some discussion on it, preferably and probably before May next year.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 64 of 95

121

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lo mentioned that probably some mistakes were made in the past. I wonder if Mr. Lo would agree that if the new design made would not be welcomed by the general public, it probably is not a matter of making mistakes or not. So, I would like to ask Mr. Lo whether the Ko Shan Theatre would give us the experience that new design might not be acceptable to the general public. My second question is: open-air theatre is not popular. In Wong Tai Sin, Morse Park Open Air Theatre also is not popular, and requests had been made to install a cover on it. There are two other important factors affecting utilization. Firstly, in the winter, nobody wants to go. Secondly, it is affected by ambient noise. I have been told that when there is a drama performance, a lot of noise from people and the barking of dogs, etc., can be heard. I think we should consider covering the open park permanently rather than in a retractable form. By doing so, it is possible to build another air-conditioned plant room right next to the open park in order to reduce noise nuisance. So, could Mr. Lo and his Committee seriously consider these suggestions?

MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, let me say a few more words. When I talked about mistakes, it was meant that if we had a new concept, we did not put that new concept into the Hong Kong context, then it itself was a mistake. At that time, I was not an Urban Councillor. Since I have always been very interested in cultural activities, and as far as I understand, there are a lot of famous open-air theatres, for instance, one in Hollywood, where the design is a successful one, but we must remember that the climatic condition in California is different from Southern China. When we wanted to introduce a new concept, it was possible that this important factor might have been neglected. Therefore, once the mistake was made, it might be rather difficult for it to be rectified. That was the reason why in 1986, we decided to operate within given constraints. We did consider the issue very seriously at that time and also the possibility of constructing a roof. But as far as I remember, the original structure imposed constraints because additional pillars were required in order to support the weight. All these suggestions will be taken into consideration and will be discussed by the Select Committee after I have received the record of proceedings of this meeting.

MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English): Mr. Chairman, a lot of these suggestions have been discussed at one time or another by the Select Committee and within the Department, as far as I can recall. May I ask whether the Chairman of the Select Committee would be prepared to invite all Members who have spoken on the subject today, and those who have not yet spoken and are interested in the subject, to attend a meeting of the Select Committee at a later date, so that the Select Committee and the Department can have the benefit of their positive and bold suggestions?

MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the question is whether I will be willing to accept this. I would be most willing to accept this. Normally, I will simply say yes and then sit down. Since the election time is coming, I would try to say as much as possible.

Page 64 of 95

Edit History

2026-05-15 19:18:39 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Page 64 of 95 120 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL no matter how much publicity work we do and how many concessions we give, it will not help to improve the situation. So my fourth question is: can the Urban Council seriously consider drastic improvement to the theatre? MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, very frankly Mr. FAN is right. I am afraid I cannot give you an answer right away. Mr. FAN, I am sure with his experience will know that the answer should not be difficult to find. Regarding the fourth question, in 1986, we also considered whether there could be drastic improvement works to be done to the theatre. If my recollection serves me correct at that time, it seemed that the only way to do so would be to demolish the theatre completely. After demolition, what is to be built is another matter, but of course the question of finance is the major consideration. We all know that a lot of expenses have to be spent on cultural centres, civic centres and museums. If Members think that there is a lapse of five years since 1986 and next year is the election year, probably it is worthwhile to discuss this issue again and my Committee will be most willing to do so. DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):—Mr. Chairman, among the many drawbacks of the Ko Shan Theatre, heat is only one of the problems, but rain is a more important one. Because in case of rain, two-thirds of the seats will be rendered unusable and it has always been the source of anxiety and uncertainty for the potential hirers. Of course, in case of rain, two-thirds of the seats will be unusable. I was a party to the discussion in the 1986 review; one of the options suggested was to have the uncovered part covered by a dome shell, in the form of a dome in Toronto, which we visited two years ago. So, the question I would like to ask is: whether the Council will reconsider this possibility to cover the uncovered part, so that the audience will be kept away from rain and the whole place can be air-conditioned? I disagree that the building should be totally demolished and reconstructed. A little modification, just as I mentioned, to make a dome to cover it, the dome may possibly be movable, and this is technically possible, as proved in Toronto. So, the question I ask is whether the Council will reconsider this possibility? MR. LO KING-MAN (in English):—Mr. Chairman, as I remember, even this was among one of the possibilities considered. It was very interesting to later know that on the opening night of the Toronto dome, it didn't work and it was raining. The audience had to suffer a wet night. But I understand that more recently, that dome now works, so maybe Dr. LEUNG has had a more fortunate experience than the opening night audience there. Nevertheless, the basic fact is that everything, as far as a committee paper is concerned, is possible. But I believe that this actually is a very expensive exercise because probably if you want to introduce a mechanism of that kind, the present structure itself would not be sufficient to accommodate the folding dome materials. Anyway, as I said, since so many Members seem to be extremely interested in this particular location in the Kowloon City, Hung Hom area, maybe it is worth the Committee to resuscitate some discussion on it, preferably and probably before May next year. HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 64 of 95 121 MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lo mentioned that probably some mistakes were made in the past. I wonder if Mr. Lo would agree that if the new design made would not be welcomed by the general public, it probably is not a matter of making mistakes or not. So, I would like to ask Mr. Lo whether the Ko Shan Theatre would give us the experience that new design might not be acceptable to the general public. My second question is: open-air theatre is not popular. In Wong Tai Sin, Morse Park Open Air Theatre also is not popular, and requests had been made to install a cover on it. There are two other important factors affecting utilization. Firstly, in the winter, nobody wants to go. Secondly, it is affected by ambient noise. I have been told that when there is a drama performance, a lot of noise from people and the barking of dogs, etc., can be heard. I think we should consider covering the open park permanently rather than in a retractable form. By doing so, it is possible to build another air-conditioned plant room right next to the open park in order to reduce noise nuisance. So, could Mr. Lo and his Committee seriously consider these suggestions? MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, let me say a few more words. When I talked about mistakes, it was meant that if we had a new concept, we did not put that new concept into the Hong Kong context, then it itself was a mistake. At that time, I was not an Urban Councillor. Since I have always been very interested in cultural activities, and as far as I understand, there are a lot of famous open-air theatres, for instance, one in Hollywood, where the design is a successful one, but we must remember that the climatic condition in California is different from Southern China. When we wanted to introduce a new concept, it was possible that this important factor might have been neglected. Therefore, once the mistake was made, it might be rather difficult for it to be rectified. That was the reason why in 1986, we decided to operate within given constraints. We did consider the issue very seriously at that time and also the possibility of constructing a roof. But as far as I remember, the original structure imposed constraints because additional pillars were required in order to support the weight. All these suggestions will be taken into consideration and will be discussed by the Select Committee after I have received the record of proceedings of this meeting. MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English): Mr. Chairman, a lot of these suggestions have been discussed at one time or another by the Select Committee and within the Department, as far as I can recall. May I ask whether the Chairman of the Select Committee would be prepared to invite all Members who have spoken on the subject today, and those who have not yet spoken and are interested in the subject, to attend a meeting of the Select Committee at a later date, so that the Select Committee and the Department can have the benefit of their positive and bold suggestions? MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the question is whether I will be willing to accept this. I would be most willing to accept this. Normally, I will simply say yes and then sit down. Since the election time is coming, I would try to say as much as possible. Page 64 of 95

Baseline (Original)

Page 64 of 95 120 HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL no matter how publicity work we do and how concession we give, it will not help to improve the situation. So my fourth question is: can the Urban Council seriously consider drastic improvement to the theatre? MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, very frankly Mr. FAN is right. I am afraid I cannot give you an answer right away. Mr. FAN, I am sure with his experience will know that the answer should not be difficult to find. Regarding the fourth question, in 1986, we also considered whether there could be drastic improvement works to be done to the theatre. If my recollection serves me correct at that time, it seemed that the only way to do so would be to demolish the theatre completely. After demolition, what is to be built is another matter, but of course the question of finance is the major consideration. We all know that a lot of expenses have to be spent on cultural centres, civic centres and museums. If Members think that there is a lapse of five years since 1986 and next year is the election year probably it is worthwhile to discuss this issue again and my Committee will be most willing to do so. DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, among the many drawbacks of the Ko Shan Theatre, heat is only one of the problem, but raining is a more important one. Because in case of rain, two-third of seats will be rendered unusable and it has always been the source of anxiety and uncertainty for the potential hirers. Of course in case of rain, two-third of the seats will be unusable. I was a party to the discussion in the 1986 review, one of the options suggested was to have the uncovered part covered by a dome shell: in the form of a dome in the Toronto which we made a visit two years ago. So, the question I would like to ask is: whether the Council will reconsider this possibility to cover the uncovered part, so that the audience will be kept away from rain and the whole place can be air-conditioned? I disagree that the building should be totally demolished and reconstructed. A little modifications just as I mentioned to make a dome to cover it, the dome may possibly be movable and this is technically possible as proved in Toronto. So, the question I ask is whether the Council will reconsider this possibility? MR. LO KING-MAN (in English):--Mr. Chairman, as I remember even this was among one of the possibility considered. It was very interesting later to know that on the opening night of the Toronto dome, it didn't work and it was raining. The audience had to suffer some wet night. But I understand that more recently that dome now works, so may be Dr. LEUNG has had a more fortunate experience than the opening night audience there. Nevertheless, the basic fact is that everything as far as a committee paper is concerned is possible. But I believe that this actually is a very expensive exercise because probably if you want to introduce mechanism of that kind, the present structure itself would not be sufficient to accommodate the folding dome materials. Anyway, as I said since so many Members seem to be extremely interested in this particular location in the Kowloon City, Hung Hom area, may be it is worth the Committee to resuscitate some discussion on it preferably and probably before May next year. HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL Page 64 of 95 121 MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lo mentioned that probably some mistakes were made in the past. I wonder if Mr. Lo would agree that the new design made would not be welcomed by the general public, it probably is not a matter of making mistakes or not. So, I would like to ask Mr. Lo whether the Ko Shan Theatre would give us the experience that new design might not be acceptable to the general public. My second question is: open air theatre is not popular. In Wong Tai Sin, Morse Park Open Air Theatre also is not popular and requests had been made to install a cover on it. There are two other important factors affecting utilization. Firstly in the winter, nobody wants to go. Secondly, it is affected by ambient noise. I have been told that when there is a drama performance, a lot of noise from people and the barking of dogs etc. can be heard. I think we should consider covering the open park permanently rather than in a retractable form. By doing so, it is possible to build another air-conditioned plant room right next the open park in order to reduce noise nuisance. So, could Mr. Lo and his Committee seriously consider these suggestions? MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, let me say a few more words. When I talked about mistakes, it was meant that if we had a new concept we did not put that new concept into Hong Kong context, then it itself was a mistake. At that time, I was not an Urban Councillor. Since I have always been very interested in cultural activities and as far as I understand, there are a lot of famous open air theatres, for instance one in Hollywood where the design is a successful one, but we must remember that the climatic condition in California is different from the Southern China. When we wanted to introduce a new concept, it was possible that this important factor might have been neglected. Therefore, once the mistake was made, it might be rather difficult for it to be rectified. That was the reason why in 1986, we decided to operate within given constraints. We did consider the issue very seriously at that time and also the possibility of constructing a roof. But as far as I remember, the original structure imposed constraints because additional pillars were required in order to support the weight. All these suggestions will be taken into consideration and will be discussed by the Select Committee after I have received the record of proceedings of this meeting. MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English): Mr. Chairman, a lot of these suggestions have been discussed at one time or another by the Select Committee and within the Department as far as I can recall. May I ask whether the Chairman of the Select Committee would be prepared to invite all Members who have spoken on the subject today, and those who have not yet spoken and are interested in the subject, to attend a meeting of the Select Committee at a later date so that the Select Committee and the Department can have the benefit of their positive and bold suggestions? MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, the question is whether I will be willing to accept this. I would be most willing to accept this. Normally, I will simply say yes and then sit down. Since the election time is coming, I would try to say as much as possible. Page 64 of 95

2026-05-15 19:18:39 · Baseline

View content

Page 64 of 95

120

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

no matter how publicity work we do and how concession we give, it will not help to improve the situation. So my fourth question is: can the Urban Council seriously consider drastic improvement to the theatre?

MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):-Mr. Chairman, very frankly Mr. FAN is right. I am afraid I cannot give you an answer right away. Mr. FAN, I am sure with his experience will know that the answer should not be difficult to find. Regarding the fourth question, in 1986, we also considered whether there could be drastic improvement works to be done to the theatre. If my recollection serves me correct at that time, it seemed that the only way to do so would be to demolish the theatre completely. After demolition, what is to be built is another matter, but of course the question of finance is the major consideration. We all know that a lot of expenses have to be spent on cultural centres, civic centres and museums. If Members think that there is a lapse of five years since 1986 and next year is the election year probably it is worthwhile to discuss this issue again and my Committee will be most willing to do so.

DR. RONALD D. B. LEUNG (in English):-Mr. Chairman, among the many drawbacks of the Ko Shan Theatre, heat is only one of the problem, but raining is a more important one. Because in case of rain, two-third of seats will be rendered unusable and it has always been the source of anxiety and uncertainty for the potential hirers. Of course in case of rain, two-third of the seats will be unusable. I was a party to the discussion in the 1986 review, one of the options suggested was to have the uncovered part covered by a dome shell: in the form of a dome in the Toronto which we made a visit two years ago. So, the question I would like to ask is: whether the Council will reconsider this possibility to cover the uncovered part, so that the audience will be kept away from rain and the whole place can be air-conditioned? I disagree that the building should be totally demolished and reconstructed. A little modifications just as I mentioned to make a dome to cover it, the dome may possibly be movable and this is technically possible as proved in Toronto. So, the question I ask is whether the Council will reconsider this possibility?

MR. LO KING-MAN (in English):--Mr. Chairman, as I remember even this was among one of the possibility considered. It was very interesting later to know that on the opening night of the Toronto dome, it didn't work and it was raining. The audience had to suffer some wet night. But I understand that more recently that dome now works, so may be Dr. LEUNG has had a more fortunate experience than the opening night audience there. Nevertheless, the basic fact is that everything as far as a committee paper is concerned is possible. But I believe that this actually is a very expensive exercise because probably if you want to introduce mechanism of that kind, the present structure itself would not be sufficient to accommodate the folding dome materials. Anyway, as I said since so many Members seem to be extremely interested in this particular location in the Kowloon City, Hung Hom area, may be it is worth the Committee to resuscitate some discussion on it preferably and probably before May next year.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 64 of 95

121

MR. PAO PING-WING (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lo mentioned that probably some mistakes were made in the past. I wonder if Mr. Lo would agree that the new design made would not be welcomed by the general public, it probably is not a matter of making mistakes or not. So, I would like to ask Mr. Lo whether the Ko Shan Theatre would give us the experience that new design might not be acceptable to the general public. My second question is: open air theatre is not popular. In Wong Tai Sin, Morse Park Open Air Theatre also is not popular and requests had been made to install a cover on it. There are two other important factors affecting utilization. Firstly in the winter, nobody wants to go. Secondly, it is affected by ambient noise. I have been told that when there is a drama performance, a lot of noise from people and the barking of dogs etc. can be heard. I think we should consider covering the open park permanently rather than in a retractable form. By doing so, it is possible to build another air-conditioned plant room right next the open park in order to reduce noise nuisance. So, could Mr. Lo and his Committee seriously consider these suggestions?

MR. LO KING-MAN (in Cantonese):—Mr. Chairman, let me say a few more words. When I talked about mistakes, it was meant that if we had a new concept we did not put that new concept into Hong Kong context, then it itself was a mistake. At that time, I was not an Urban Councillor. Since I have always been very interested in cultural activities and as far as I understand, there are a lot of famous open air theatres, for instance one in Hollywood where the design is a successful one, but we must remember that the climatic condition in California is different from the Southern China. When we wanted to introduce a new concept, it was possible that this important factor might have been neglected. Therefore, once the mistake was made, it might be rather difficult for it to be rectified. That was the reason why in 1986, we decided to operate within given constraints. We did consider the issue very seriously at that time and also the possibility of constructing a roof. But as far as I remember, the original structure imposed constraints because additional pillars were required in order to support the weight. All these suggestions will be taken into consideration and will be discussed by the Select Committee after I have received the record of proceedings of this meeting.

MR. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN (in English): Mr. Chairman, a lot of these suggestions have been discussed at one time or another by the Select Committee and within the Department as far as I can recall. May I ask whether the Chairman of the Select Committee would be prepared to invite all Members who have spoken on the subject today, and those who have not yet spoken and are interested in the subject, to attend a meeting of the Select Committee at a later date so that the Select Committee and the Department can have the benefit of their positive and bold suggestions?

1990 — Page 64

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note