Q Should the cultural hub's giant canopy be built?
It should be built only if the long-term maintenance requirements are adequately and professionally assessed. One of the major failings of the Hong Kong government used to be, and may still be, that when submitting requests for approval there used to be a space provided for 'recurrent costs'. However, the deputy financial secretary, who was then responsible for the approval, would make no commitment to these costs.
The result was that, in the face of unexpected events such as the economic downturn, current costs were often disallowed and assets decayed, which then had to be replaced, at excessive cost to the taxpayer. This was particularly true with hi-tech assets, where neither the head of the department nor the deputy financial secretary had any real understanding of the problem.
I fear the same could happen with the canopy which would, by its very nature, involve state-of-the-art design, materials and construction.
I recommend a detailed assessment of the long-term maintenance, contingency and disaster planning be presented to the Legislative Council and the public before any decision to go ahead is made. Ken Bridgewater, New Territories
Lord Foster has been responsible for two of Hong Kong's most memorable buildings: the HSBC building in Central and Chek Lap Kok airport. I therefore say if Lord Foster wants the canopy, then build the canopy. The brewing controversy surrounding the proposed cultural hub is reminiscent of another controversial centre, that in Australia, which has now become a national symbol: the Sydney Opera House.