bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

Q Should the Wan Chai street market be retained?

Ever since I moved to Wan Chai, government bureaucrats have been trying to ruin the ambience, lifestyle and character of the area. The Wan Chai street market is perfect as it is. The de facto pedestrianisation of the streets makes it a wonderful environment in which to shop. The concrete monstrosities designed by government architects as new markets are smelly and have all the character of a high-security prison, as well as being expensive. Keep the old market, make the vendors' licences irrevocable, keep out extra vehicles: we want less, not more traffic.

Moving things into a new block, which most do not want, destroying the art deco old market, and more traffic are anathema to residents. Cheap food and tried and tested stallholders are what we desire. If the district council approved this awful plan it was probably when it was not democratically elected.

If the government has to let a developer make a huge profit, swap the site of the planned new market with that of the old, but it should stop destroying vibrant local community amenities in the name of modernisation.

Nigel de Boinville, Wan Chai

The story 'Battle looms as Wan Chai Street market faces axe' (February 24) is yet another prime example of the government destroying Hong Kong's heritage.

Following the public outcry against the demolition of the unique Stanley hawker market and Wedding Card Street in Wan Chai, it is disheartening that the government has still not learnt a lesson in preserving the natural beauty of the city.

These are among a few local heritage places that I show to my visiting friends.

What makes Hong Kong proud of itself is not putting up concrete buildings, but its rich history that has evolved from a tiny fishing village more than 100 years ago.

The government will help a lot in spurring tourism if it can keep the heritage places as they are.

Name and address supplied

The Wan Chai street market shouldn't be demolished, because it is a very important historical part of Hong Kong Island. Working as a tour guide and travel book writer, I attach a lot of importance to places like this. I have written a guidebook about Hong Kong,  my favourite city in the world, and I think it would be a big mistake to demolish this market. A city without historical relics will lose its character. And Hong Kong has a very special character - that's the reason why I love this city so much. Modern shopping centres and markets you can find everywhere, but not these  local markets.

Profit can't be all. We shouldn't scratch out our roots and history.

Alexander Nadler, Germany

On other matters ...

In his letter published in Talkback on Friday,   Lantau Cable Car Sustainability Advisory Board chairman  Richard Welford is critical of the Green Lantau Association  for reporting to the press the falling of boulders from the cable car tower 4 hilltop helipad site.

We share Dr Welford's preference for real dialogue with all stakeholders. Efforts at partnership by the board  have unfortunately been countered in this, as well as in several  previous instances, by MTRC procrastinations, denials, false assurances.

After receiving an initial report from hikers, on February 13, the association  circulated inquiries to the board  and the MTRC requesting information on the method of surplus material disposal at the tower 4 helipad site. This was followed by five days of e-mail exchanges in which the MTRC not only did not disclose any details of the incident but even gave assurances that larger parts of boulders from the site would be removed by helicopter and that works were in full compliance with an environmental permit.

The association  checked the site on  February 17. What we found confirmed information provided by the hikers. There was no evidence of boulder stockpiling for helicopter removal  and no indication of protective measures to prevent the accidental rolling of boulders off the site. On the contrary, excavator tracks had been formed from the allocated hilltop site on to three different off-site locations on the steepest eastern parts of the hill. They were clearly tracks to free downhill disposal of surplus material. The downhill dumping of rocks and boulders was not a single incident, but a series of deliberate actions that may have lasted several days or even weeks.

When the association  requested circulation to the board  of site photographs, the MTRC provided two  pictures taken from an angle from which the dumped rocks were not visible. A further  request for the MTRC to circulate  other photographs was ignored.

Only after the Post  took up the case did the MTRC  notify the board  of the incident. That was a full 12 days after the boulders had fallen near the trail workers and 10 days after initial  inquiries by the association had been made.

This brings us back to Dr Welford's call for real stakeholder dialogue. The association  believes the board  chairman has a role to play when dialogue being attempted within the board  is not responded to.  In this instance it would have been appropriate for the board chairman to exercise his authority and ask the MTRC to release information it was withholding. Such a move could have avoided the need for the association  to involve the press and would have helped establish the notion that it is the MTRC that is accountable to the board.

The concept of project proponent accountability is an important one not only for this particular board  but even more so for possible future sustainability boards that may be created for similar projects in Hong Kong.

Fabian Pedrazzini, Green Lantau Association



talk back