An exit plan for West Kowloon
In remarks that have been seen as a significant change of tone, Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen said on Sunday that the public was not obliged to choose one of the three shortlisted designs for the West Kowloon cultural complex.
He said the government would respect public opinion. 'We can discuss again, plan again and even consider separate bidding,' he said on a radio programme. He even admitted having reservations about single tendering, but felt that he had to stick to it if the site were to be developed into a world-class cultural centre and landmark.
While he has not thrown in the towel yet, it appeared that he was preparing for a climbdown. Despite their persistent lobbying, officials probably realise that they have failed to dispel public perception of the project as a massive land deal disguised as a cultural development.
Perhaps they are already quietly conceiving an exit strategy. Here is one for them to consider.
Although the project has been greeted by a barrage of criticism, few have opposed developing the prime harbourfront site for cultural purposes. Complaints have revolved around giving the winning bidder total control, thus enabling it to wield overwhelming bargaining power over architects, builders and artists wanting a slice of the project. The other major concern is the cost of building and maintaining the giant canopy designed by Norman Foster. What if the government set up a statutory authority that runs on prudent commercial principles to develop and operate the cultural complex? Several private operators are confident enough to submit bids to do as the government demands and still expect to make a profit. There is no reason why a properly run public authority cannot do the same.
Note that we are not talking about setting up a government department and employing an army of civil servants, but setting up a body similar to the MTR and Airport Authority that run as businesses. It would be similar to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, which has successfully transformed deserted dockland areas into a top tourist attraction.
Nor would there be a need for everything to go back to square one if we decided to set up a public authority to spearhead the project. Lord Foster's giant canopy is controversial, but this is expected of all masterpieces. Perhaps it may have to be ditched. But it is also possible that the public would be convinced in time of its merits - providing a unifying theme to the whole development, and shade and cover.
The three shortlisted bidders could be partially reimbursed the fees they have spent to prepare their submissions, provided that they allow elements of their designs to be incorporated into the one eventually adopted by the authority. Even without being reimbursed, they have benefited from having a head start over other bidders.
The authority should conduct studies and consult the public on the feasibility of each planned facility. Each could be put out to tender separately and linked to the development rights for a specific lot. But all the designs must be consistent with the complex's master plan to ensure unity.
Another major task for the authority would be to begin nurturing the site as a destination for artistic and family outings. As developments take years to complete, much of the site should be turned into a park for the time being. There is no need to put in too many facilities. Instead, trees and grass should be planted, and simple shades built, as what Hong Kong lacks most is wide-open spaces. Use the site for open-air concerts, exhibitions of giant sculptures and many other artistic activities that need space. Over time, people will have become used to visiting the site even before it is a built-up cultural complex.
C. K. Lau is the post's executive editor, policy
