The government's public consultation event last Saturday on its two plans for the Central harbourfront was designed to exclude non-governmental assessment of them. Officials denied a request, made beforehand, from a community organisation focusing on urban planning and design to speak about the proposals. Members of the Planning Department who organised the event were in no mood to entertain alternative visions on the day. As far as they were concerned, they had taken into account feedback from previous rounds of consultation in coming up with the two plans.
In fact, the two are not fundamentally different. There is still going to be a thundering highway called 'P2' bisecting the waterfront. There will still be large raised platforms, referred to as 'decks', on top of which will be offices and malls. Underneath, at ground level, there will be a sizeable transport interchange.
One plan was described as having a 'reduced' deck while the other had a 'larger' deck. Both were described as 'landscaped' - a way to convince people that it would be a pleasant place to be. In both cases, the deck was one to two storeys high. The truth is that the deck which government planners have in mind is very large. It will be needed because of the increased traffic which will result from the added building density around the waterfront. Thus, pedestrians have to be separated from vehicles. Much of the space at ground level will be given over to vehicles, while people will have to walk on these elevated decks.
For those of us who have been urging the government to reduce and spread the density of development, and turn P2 into a tree-lined ocean boulevard, the plans remain disappointing. Neither will produce a waterfront that will stand the test of time: it is unlikely to be considered one of the world's best-designed waterfronts. Surely, such an opportunity should have provided the stimulation to create the world's best waterfront design. I still believe that a good yardstick to measure the government's plans is to ask whether we will be proud of them in, say, 50 to 100 years. If the answer is 'no', or 'maybe', we really need to start again.
Government planners are not interested in such a yardstick. They want to get on with things. They will blame further delays on activists refusing to let go of idealistic but unrealistic ideas. They will insist that design is a matter of subjective taste, and slowing things down will be bad for the economy. In fact, there are fundamental problems with their original plan which have yet to be fully addressed. Their sort of tinkering will not give Hong Kong the harbourfront it deserves.
Officials' replies will be predictable. They will say the public, in general, supports their approach and they will take into account various comments and produce a final plan in due course. They will also point to professional support, such as from the Hong Kong Institute of Planners. It appears to have been heavily influenced, of late, to support the current consultation document - as can be seen from its recent 'supporting document', available on its website. The document sounds like an effort to show loyalty, praising even the graphic quality and 'sincerity' of the document. Its support of the relocation of Queen's Pier also shows a departure from its position in May last year, which is also on the website.