Three concepts for Kai Tak are virtually identical
During the launch presentation of three outline concept plans for Kai Tak at the Town Planning Board, chairwoman Rita Lau Ng Wai-lan, permanent secretary for housing, planning and lands, said the review was 'historic', as 'it is the first time a planning project has begun with a blank paper' ('Land grab may be needed off old airport runway', November 10).
This is complete nonsense. The three concepts for Kai Tak are identical, as all are dominated by the same cruise terminal, sports stadium, metro park, hospital, Sha Tin-Central rail depot and roads sought by the government. They were all kept in despite questions from the public and members of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee (HEC). The questions, 'why required', 'who are they for', 'why Kai Tak', 'what supporting facilities', 'how much land' and 'what development model', have yet to be answered in each case.
Not surprisingly, board members have now raised similar concerns. The 'concept plans' are merely allocations of land to different departments, resulting in an inefficient use of scarce harbourfront land. The key developments are surrounded by roads and high-intensity commercial and residential developments inappropriate for the location.
The proposed stadium is fully enclosed and a windowless cultural centre is situated on 23 hectares of prime waterfront. If the centre is needed at all, why not integrate it with the park? Make the centre 'open', providing stunning vistas across the harbour. It is unclear that Kai Tak is the best location for a cruise terminal. Cruise-line guests require convenient access to a major airport and city-centre facilities. The tip of the old Kai Tak runway could not be further away. This creates much vehicle movement along the narrow runway and through areas of Kowloon whose roads are already at capacity. West Kowloon, with its highway and rail links and proximity to cultural and hospitality facilities, continues to be excluded.
The concepts are misleading. The four-lane highway needed for the transfer of passengers, engine parts, cleaning crews, food and sewage ends in a green park rather than the yard, rail depot, warehousing, customs, immigration, retail and hotel facilities required for a three-berth cruise terminal.
More disturbing is that the concepts fail to take harbour planning principles into account. The highway is right next to the waterfront, not unlike the Island Eastern Corridor. And none of the land uses along the Kai Tak waterfront are designed to enhance the use of the harbour.
Other than the cruise terminal itself, there are no land-water interfaces, such as marinas, landings, water sports facilities or a relocation of breakwaters. That these require support on the seabed - reclamation - cannot be any excuse. Keeping our harbour a 'living harbour' and 'an economic asset' are overriding public needs.