The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) announced in February this year that they want to "redevelop" the Peel and Graham Street market. The headlines mostly read like this one from Singtao Daily: “URA spending $3.8 billion to build an Old Shop Street in Central.”
It sounds like big spending for the good of the city. Many people who heard the news heard the government’s message – the streets are old and dirty and the URA has come to the rescue them. Heck, they’ll even spend a little extra to “bring old Hong Kong back” by “recreating” the pre-war street scene with a few three-storey buildings (in addition to the high-rises). They even promised to build a “green corridor,” to add a touch of nature to the area.
But is that all there is? Apparently not. Here we present the information the URA has submitted to the Town Planning Board but rarely shown to the public, along with our own explanation of how it will likely look.
Hawking activity will be "preserved"
THE URA SAYS: “The open market at Graham Street and Peel Street, being one of the local features, will be retained... Hawkers’ stalls can be set up in the public open space.” Ma explains that the new buildings will be “set back” so there will be extra space for street stalls to line up along the streets.
THE TRUTH IS: The URA says stalls “can be” set up, but how? One conservationist who does not want to be named, says, “If I paid a lot for a luxurious flat there, would I want a street market stall to be in front of my building? Would any shops want that to happen?” Paul Zimmerman raises another concern: “The construction will take years. Will the hawkers be able to wait that long before they can start their business in the area again?” The market will most likely be wiped out when the construction starts. URA’s plan to reintroduce hawking activity into the area sounds very unlikely.
The area would be “redeveloped”
THE URA SAYS: All the buildings but three pre-war ones in the area will be torn down. Four new buildings will be built there, linked by “a green corridor.” URA’s brief says, “The proposed redevelopment... will not give rise to unacceptable visual impact.”