1997 — Page 248

Urban Council Proceedings 市政局議事錄 All AI Reviewed

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

247

knowledge on particular types of architecture. We also propose for the setting up of a topical assessment panel. Open design competitions should be held for medium and small scale projects as well as large central projects. The entries should be assessed by this topical panel with members from the professional assessment panel, Government and the Urban Council.

I now move on, more intensively, to how a fair and open system that is cost effective and that meets the needs of the public can be introduced. In English, we call it public participation. The Hong Kong citizens have all along rarely participated in public architectural projects or the use of public space. It is not really our habit to do so.

For small scale projects (costing below $12 million), we should let people affected or residents of the district examine the plans. For example, before we embark on a works project at a park, we should post notices to inform the public. This way, the public will have a chance to give their opinions and inspect the plans. For larger projects (costing over $12 million), public hearings should be held. As a matter of fact, large area parks and UC complexes are already large projects. At public hearings, our supporters, critics and people or bodies with vested interest will be able to participate. Members of this Council and consultants responsible for assessing projects should be invited to attend the hearings too. As for central facilities, holding public hearings is an absolute must. Models of the projects should be displayed and public opinion should be collected before any decision is made.

Let me go back to this incident of the Central Library. If this Council had considered all options before making a decision a year ago when the public and professional bodies were offering all sorts of constructive ideas, the impression of doing things in haste could have been avoided. Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.

MR. BENEDICT LEE SHUI-SING (in Cantonese):—I basically support the motion moved by Mr. Ambrose Cheung, but I have several points to add and draw Members' attention to.

First of all, if we incorporate all Urban Council projects in the mechanism suggested by Mr. CHEUNG, namely for projects to go through work consultancies or open competitions, many projects might be delayed. We should consider the scales of projects before following such procedures. I am saying that if we decide to proceed as proposed, we should draw a line on which projects to be subjected to the procedures.

Secondly, I want to speak about the redevelopment project at Victoria Park referred to by Mr. CHEUNG. I have an alternate view on this. Of course, we should consider (assuming that Mr. CHEUNG's motion is carried) the benefits in design, but on the other hand, projects may be delayed. If we deal with projects in the planning or discussion stage the way suggested by Mr. Cheung, I am all for it. However, for projects already decided, if we adopt the proposed

Page 248 of 654

Edit History

2026-05-16 03:29:02 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL 247 knowledge on particular types of architecture. We also propose for the setting up of a topical assessment panel. Open design competitions should be held for medium and small scale projects as well as large central projects. The entries should be assessed by this topical panel with members from the professional assessment panel, Government and the Urban Council. I now move on, more intensively, to how a fair and open system that is cost effective and that meets the needs of the public can be introduced. In English, we call it public participation. The Hong Kong citizens have all along rarely participated in public architectural projects or the use of public space. It is not really our habit to do so. For small scale projects (costing below $12 million), we should let people affected or residents of the district examine the plans. For example, before we embark on a works project at a park, we should post notices to inform the public. This way, the public will have a chance to give their opinions and inspect the plans. For larger projects (costing over $12 million), public hearings should be held. As a matter of fact, large area parks and UC complexes are already large projects. At public hearings, our supporters, critics and people or bodies with vested interest will be able to participate. Members of this Council and consultants responsible for assessing projects should be invited to attend the hearings too. As for central facilities, holding public hearings is an absolute must. Models of the projects should be displayed and public opinion should be collected before any decision is made. Let me go back to this incident of the Central Library. If this Council had considered all options before making a decision a year ago when the public and professional bodies were offering all sorts of constructive ideas, the impression of doing things in haste could have been avoided. Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion. MR. BENEDICT LEE SHUI-SING (in Cantonese):—I basically support the motion moved by Mr. Ambrose Cheung, but I have several points to add and draw Members' attention to. First of all, if we incorporate all Urban Council projects in the mechanism suggested by Mr. CHEUNG, namely for projects to go through work consultancies or open competitions, many projects might be delayed. We should consider the scales of projects before following such procedures. I am saying that if we decide to proceed as proposed, we should draw a line on which projects to be subjected to the procedures. Secondly, I want to speak about the redevelopment project at Victoria Park referred to by Mr. CHEUNG. I have an alternate view on this. Of course, we should consider (assuming that Mr. CHEUNG's motion is carried) the benefits in design, but on the other hand, projects may be delayed. If we deal with projects in the planning or discussion stage the way suggested by Mr. Cheung, I am all for it. However, for projects already decided, if we adopt the proposed Page 248 of 654 Page 248 of 654 Page 248 of 654

Baseline (Original)

Page 248 of 654 HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL 247 knowledge on particular types of architecture. We also propose for the setting up of a topical assessment panel. Open design competitions should be held for medium and small scale projects as well as large central projects. The entries :should be assessed by this topical panel with members from the professional assessment panel, Government and the Urban Council. I now move on , more intensively, to how a fair and open system that is cost effective and that meets the needs of the public can be introduced. In English, we call it public participation. The Hong Kong citizens has all along rarely participated in public architectural projects or the use of public space. It is not really our habit to do so. For small scale projects (costing below $12 million), we should let people affected or residents of the district examine the plans. For example, before we embark on a works project at a park, we should post notices to inform the Ipublic. This way, the public will have a chance to give their opinions and iinspect the plans. For larger projects (costing over $12 million). public hearings should be held. As a matter of fact. large area parks and UC complexes are already large projects. At public hearings, our supporters, critics and people or Ibodies with vested interest will be able to participate. Members of this Council and consultants responsible for assessing projects should be invited to attend Ihearings too. As for central facilities, holding public hearings is an absolute imust. Models of the projects should be displayed and public opinion should be collected before any decision is made. Let me go back to this incident of the Central Library. If this Council had considered all options before making a decision a year ago when the public sand professional bodies were offering all sorts of constructive ideas, the impression of doing things in haste could have been avoided. Sir, with these remarks. I support the motion. IMR. BENEDICT LEE SHUI-SING (in Cantonese):—1 basically support the motion moved by Mr. Ambrose Cheung, but I have several points to add and draw IMembers attention to. First of all, if we incorporate all Urban Council projects in the mechanism suggested by Mr. CHEUNG, namely for projects to go through work consultancies or open competitions, many projects might be delayed. We should consider the scales of projects before following such procedures. I am saying that if we decide to proceed as proposed, we should draw a line on which projects to be subjected to the procedures. Secondly, I want to speak about the redevelopment project at Victoria Park referred to by Mr. CHEUNG, I have an alternate view on this. Of course, we should consider (assuming that Mr. CHEUNG's motion is carried) the benefits iin design, but on the other hand, projects may be delayed. If we deal with projects in the planning or discussion stage the way suggested by Mr. Cheung, I am all for it. However, for projects already decided, if we adopt the proposed Page 248 of 654 Page 248 of 654 Page 248 of 654

2026-05-16 03:29:02 · Baseline

View content

Page 248 of 654

HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL

247

knowledge on particular types of architecture. We also propose for the setting up of a topical assessment panel. Open design competitions should be held for medium and small scale projects as well as large central projects. The entries :should be assessed by this topical panel with members from the professional

assessment panel, Government and the Urban Council.

I now move on , more intensively, to how a fair and open system that is cost effective and that meets the needs of the public can be introduced. In English, we call it public participation. The Hong Kong citizens has all along rarely participated in public architectural projects or the use of public space. It is not really our habit to do so.

For small scale projects (costing below $12 million), we should let people affected or residents of the district examine the plans. For example, before we embark on a works project at a park, we should post notices to inform the Ipublic. This way, the public will have a chance to give their opinions and iinspect the plans. For larger projects (costing over $12 million). public hearings should be held. As a matter of fact. large area parks and UC complexes are already large projects. At public hearings, our supporters, critics and people or Ibodies with vested interest will be able to participate. Members of this Council and consultants responsible for assessing projects should be invited to attend Ihearings too. As for central facilities, holding public hearings is an absolute imust. Models of the projects should be displayed and public opinion should be

collected before any decision is made.

Let me go back to this incident of the Central Library. If this Council had considered all options before making a decision a year ago when the public sand professional bodies were offering all sorts of constructive ideas, the impression of doing things in haste could have been avoided. Sir, with these

remarks. I support the motion.

IMR. BENEDICT LEE SHUI-SING (in Cantonese):—1 basically support the motion moved by Mr. Ambrose Cheung, but I have several points to add and draw IMembers attention to.

Secondly, I want to speak about the redevelopment project at Victoria Park referred to by Mr. CHEUNG, I have an alternate view on this. Of course, we should consider (assuming that Mr. CHEUNG's motion is carried) the benefits iin design, but on the other hand, projects may be delayed. If we deal with projects in the planning or discussion stage the way suggested by Mr. Cheung, I am all for it. However, for projects already decided, if we adopt the proposed

1997 — Page 248

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note