為什麼要迷戀街道呢﹖有很多行人走動的街道只是城市的一種設計﹐不是唯一也不是最好的設計﹐只不過上世紀恰好因應香港的地理環境發展出來。有人會用歐洲的城市去做街道帶來生氣的例子。不過對我這個在北美大的人﹐行街反而不適舒﹐又冇冷氣商店又不集中﹐行商場才是正常的生活方式。街道只會出現在市中心幾個block當是景點﹐一般人購物生活消費是去商場。

另外起高樓影響空氣流動的確是問題﹐但這個問題用科學技術應該可以解決。

北美或加拿大等地，地廣人稀，四處都是荒地，人們駕車走老遠的路去outlet購物消費，本來就是無可奈何的選擇。而且他們的大型商場，如Mall of America、West Edmonton Mall般成功的也不多，相反很多都是死氣沉沉，商鋪倒閉的不少。

這與香港舊區的情況根本不能同日而語：我們的都市活動密度極高，根本不需再靠商場來「集中化」；我們的社區也不是一片未開墾的荒地，需要龐大但無個性、便於急速發展但拙於長遠調節的商場結構去填補空白。

何況商場還有「主權非公有」的問題。你在裡面行逛、購物是可以，但如果想演街頭劇寫大字報，或者與朋友當街對飲劈酒，恐怕便會惹來保安人員的干預了。而晚上營業時間一過，商場便要落閘趕人，到時別說「涼冷氣」，就連單純地路過也不大可能吧？

近來有什麼作品嗎？詩呢？我距離文學的世界好像已有一光年那樣遠了。

"不過我們也要撫心自問，為何一幢房子才不過四、五十年便已殘破如斯？究竟是保養不力的問題，還是當初建樓的時候根本沒有長住久安的打算？人家歐洲的百年老宅可被視為寶呢"

我諗天氣係一個大問題. 此外, "建樓的時候根本沒有長住久安的打算"也許都有可能. 還有, 那個年代香港的技術水平, 物料...等都應該比較差.

我對城市規劃沒有太多的認識，但以下的內容只是作為一個觀塘區的居民對重建計劃的感想。

政府曾說重建觀塘是為了給當地居民安排一個更舒適的生活，但是從她的計劃書中，我看不見觀塘重建後，還有多少地方是可以供人居住，我只是見到一橦橦的大廈，全部都是辦公室、酒店和廣場，政府根本是全力將觀塘打造成別一個將軍澳!一個密密麻麻的市區!

在觀塘市中心，我覺得有一個APM廣場就足夠，我完全不想市中心被廣場包圍住!

我不希望我以及我的家人，每個週未的消遣，就只有行商場!

就算香港的天氣太熱，不適合長期在街上行，但不代表要擴充所有商場，不要忘記商場噴出的熱氣是令街道愈來愈熱的成因之一。雖然我們可以選擇到有冷氣的商場"嘆一嘆"，但請想一想仍要在室外工作的人，當你在享用冷氣的同時，他們仍然被商場所噴出的熱氣焗住! 我認為要解決街道太熱的問題，倒不如將街道擴闊，降低樓宇高度，以加強空氣流動。

現時香港一般的重建計劃，都是把舊區中的若干街道 (用歐美的概念是 "several blocks")圍起、拆卸，再換上新的屋苑。若是近期灣仔看見那種規模較小的倒沒所謂，但現在的觀塘重建計劃頗有荔枝角-大角咀一帶西九龍填海區的味道，那便有點問題。

將空出土地轉化成大型屋苑+商場，理論上是可以為中產提供居所，亦可某程度上改善區內衛生。現時的觀塘舊樓，因設計、樓齡及管理關係，環境確實未如人意，因此對部分現有居民而言，重建亦可讓他們遷往環境較佳的居所。所以我明白重建某程度上是有好處的。不過重建後也不是就此天下太平的：

1. 「鑽石鑲牙簽」- 偽豪宅的問題：有網友已另開欄評論，有關理論在此不贅。以現時樓盤的設計而言，將軍澳那種比較偏遠地區的樓盤也來弄些超級無敵 n 萬尺 clubhouse 或 十來廿萬的廚具之類，樓價也因而推高，五六百尺單位至少也要 200 多萬。以觀塘這種市區地段，更加只會有多沒少。若以「清1」作標準，觀塘重建後的住宅部分至少要賣 $5500-6000 一尺。一個 650 尺單位，賣 $6000 一尺，已是差不多 400 萬。屆時還不是一群中產勉強上車，供他個二三十年？大家可以說買樓是個人理財決定，貴客自理 - 但在現時的地產模式發展之下，一邊是地產商竭力炮製「鑽石牙簽」，一面又有人認為這種重建計劃是為中產提供更多居所的利民措施。一方點火，一方撥火，抱著 "ownership society" 夢想的中產還不「落疊」？結果還是你死你事，供樓時苦著臉，一邊又說地產商無良、政府欺壓中產、中產經濟負擔重又要交稅，如何如何，一樣是一大票人不高興。若然不興建「鑽石牙簽」，而是改建居屋之類，又不符合 hevangel 兄 「能者居之」和 「efficiency maximization」 的宗旨，一樣不行。換句話說，重建成個甚麼模樣也行，可能都是失望的人多。當然，以金錢利潤計算，某些人會笑逐顏開，又是另一回事。

2. 社區關係：如上所述，重建後的觀塘將成為以中產為主的居住區域，另加小部分工商業建築 (如 apm)，配套設施方面以大型商場及大型公園為主。但值得留意的是類似的社區如西九龍各處的「填海樓」，均出現社區人際關係疏離、晚間路上渺無人煙等現象。大型樓盤住戶多為相對上青/壯年的「double/multiple-income 核子家庭」。這種家庭的人，不外是「日做夜做」者多，「見同事/同學多過見屋企」，加上大型屋苑的封閉式管理，鄰居和社區這些概念似有若無。社區居民之間缺乏 bonding，雖不至如天水圍般糟糕，但對於強調維繫傳統道德/價值觀的 hevangel 兄而言，相信不會是好事。而新式樓盤區晚上渺無人煙，正面地說固然是封閉式管理令人流減少，「冇咁雜」，但從反面看，以將軍澳為例，一個白天居民大多外出上班上學，夜間放工放學後躲在家中的社區，還有甚麼活力可言？即使計及留在區內的工商業商戶，日間可為社區增加人流，晚上下班後也不外是另一個中環。而且在所謂的「建築群優化」後，新的工商業大廈會招來甚麼樣的商戶呢？帶來的流動人口又有多少呢？而只限於商場內的大型商店吃喝消費，沒有了原本在街道上的小商戶，人的流動和 transactions/interaction 減少，社區的活力如何維持？

3. 商業運作 - 沒有小商戶，何來 entrepreneurship：hevangel 兄對大商場似乎非常推崇。我自己也喜歡有冷氣的大型商場，不過大型商場的問題在於千篇一律 - 買電器不外豐澤泰林百老匯，買體育用品則必定 Royal Sporting House、Gigasports 與 Marathon，時裝則大概有些G2000、Giordano、再加高檔點的 Levis、CK Jeans，以及近年出現的 Mango 和 Zara，精品擺設則不離 Hallmark 和 Swarovski...這種完全是大型連鎖店為主的大商場，去多了只有悶。而且身為自由經濟支持者的 hevangel 兄，大概不會不知道向大企業傾斜而忽視 small business 的經濟體系，有可能 squeeze out 了小規模的自營商戶，迫更多人打工而不創業。Entrepreneurship 的消亡，正是危害資本主義的一大因素。把觀塘舊區清除了，沒有了十蚊自選雙拼飯，也沒有了五蚊份報紙加送紙巾的報紙檔，也沒有了舊式小型商場的動漫店和飾物店，只有規範化的大型連鎖店在大型商場裡以機械的模式售賣同質度甚高的產品，還有甚麼 entrepreneurship 可言？進一步說，現有的小商戶在拆遷後，還能去甚麼地方經營？油尖旺？貴租負擔不起。深水埗？和地頭蟲門搶飯吃？天水圍？這地方還能做生意的嗎？各區公屋？聽說領匯好像頻頻加租。重建後的商場？你這賣牛雜的憑甚麼搬上大商場？香港的成功，一直有賴這一群獨立小商戶，自立自主地謀生，下焉者自給自足，上焉者興家發跡，不少中產，甚至富豪由此而生。把這種人都趕跑了，大家只會「打份牛工」，賢達之士經濟學者跑出來埋怨香港人喪失了創業精神，又怨得了誰？創業不是保證發達，也有只為自給自足。當自營生計再無其路，「泊碼頭」方能糊口，作為市場中一分子的人便自會有所選擇。說得更嚴重一點，就是獨立經營小商販頗有是年紀不少、技能及學歷不多的人 (你見過大學生在街頭開報紙檔或賣牛雜嗎?)，這堆人不能做自己的生意，便只能幹那些清潔保安之類的工作，一天到晚埋怨低薪；要嘛便是綜援度日。屆時各方賢達和「中產」最好閉咀 - 房子住得舒適，商場逛得安樂，不是沒有代價的。別人付了代價，也不可能是無償。「世上沒有免費午餐」，交稅「養懶人」可不要埋怨。

4. 住戶搬遷：將住戶搬去別區，可以，怎麼不行？但人家現時住在交通比較方便的市區，上班上學方便省時之餘，交通費負擔亦較輕。而且區內的小商戶有工作提供，甚至可以完全節省交通費，對基層而言有莫大幫助。搬往其他地區，不外是新市鎮的新型屋邨而已，不是天水圍便是東涌。人本已窮，技能又少，學也學不了許多，只能做低薪工作，區內又欠缺工作機會，出市區又耗時花車錢。你叫那些月薪 4000 每天工作 12 小時的保安大叔清潔大姐，每週六天早上五六時出市區，每天 25 元車錢 (已經是最低估計)，每月車錢若何？難道又叫政府補貼嗎？「福利社會」，「養懶人」，「壓榨中產」啊！

重建，可以，但也要明其利害才行。就算是事在必行，不得不然，至少誠實點承認會有問題存在，可以嗎？更何況沒錢沒本事，住舊區舊樓，是不得不然 (因此也有不少基層樂於接受重建)，不是所謂的「窮人」拿了甚麼「著數」。支持重建，也許不用如此刻薄。

又：樓樓上的 Patricia 小姐，有 message 給你。祈察。

//如果沒有那間有啤酒賣的平價粉麵檔，人都被趕晒入商場，我們連抽個煙也被禁，生活，又怎樣可以鬆容？！而生活得鬆容，並不一定興錢有關，如果，我們的文化包容，如果，我們的街道包容，如果，我們的態度開放包容。//

兩睇。社會包唔包容你，你有時控制唔到。倒不如你自己適應環境，調節自己心境。以上例子，果條友可嘗試戒煙戒酒，休閒時安坐商場咖啡室睇雜誌；唔「鬆容」嗎？

“一半地起中產樓一半起地居屋或公屋﹐當是大型的工人宿舍好。”

I really don’t understand why hevangel has so much hatred toward the grassroots. Perhaps it is really the so-called elite school background, where almost everybody eventually became middle-class in hevangel’s good old days. It seems that only middle-class are humans.

People supporting grassroots’ rights are not trying to condemn the middle class and the rich to a miserable life worse than that of the grassroots, but just a better treatment for the grassroots, far from matchable to the living standard of the middle class and the rich.

How could hevangel suggest that resources (e.g., homes and space of daily activities in the urban areas) should be taken away from the have-nots and transferred to the haves? Where is his conscience?

“現在人大了寧可找間靜靜的酒吧暢談。亦有試過在停車場坐在車頭蓋上談天到天光。”
How can the grassroots afford the expensive pubs, and… cars!

“教政治哲學只是把各種政治理論優劣推論說出來﹐最後決定接受那個理論還是學生決定。政治哲學最終還是要通過經濟學的眼睛去看”

Please don’t see “economics” as a moral theory, which it never intends to be.

And political philosophies are not religious beliefs. Please give arguments and justifications, not mere CLAIMS.

As long as hevangel cannot answer the question why economic rules are the ultimate moral rules, and why efficiency is morally good, he is not talking about what a redevelopment project “should” morally be, but just his personal blind faith or obscure taste. No one should be interested in his bullshit.

Who don't know that money can buy almost anything (including people's homes and the whole living style) in a capitalist society? But is this a morally "good" society (good for ALL, not just for hevangel and his middle-class friends)? Is this what a society "should" be? Where is the dignity of human, if what they treasure has to be and could only be measured in monetary terms? Does hevangel mean everything has a price, including his soul?

Moreover, compensation would only be paid to the flat owners, not to mention that it would reinforce the idea that monetary values override all other values. How about the non-owner residents? How about those customers of cheaper goods and services?

It may be rational, convenient and efficient for people to spit on the street, as it may be rational for flat owners to sell their rundown flats. But what is rational for an individual is not necessarily rational for society. The economists may prefer to call these “externalities”. The damage to hygiene in the first case and the destroying of a way of life in the second cannot be something called “good”.

Is the middle-class going to enjoy cheaper flats in the urban area by demolishing the old districts? Far from it, the news flats in the urban area are becoming ridiculously expensive. Rather, the price of the flats could be more readily regulated by the government’s land sale policy.

Indeed, we are talking about morality, as Ah Bing said.

We know hevangel likes a society working in a way of pure competition. But who are interested in what hevangel likes, which is anyway unrelated to any moral consideration?

In hevangel's logic, why can't triads ask for money from any businessmen, not to mention "honest businessmen". It is very efficient... for the triads! Force is the law of nature for the triads! And anyway, triads like to do things that way!

An immature suggestion about how living areas should be allocated, if not purely by price:
Different kinds of residential flats (public housing, HOS, sandwich class housing, low price renovated old private housing, and new private housing) should be allowed in the urban and suburban areas, and the size of the new flats in the urban areas should be restricted so that the limited resources of living space in the urban areas could be more evenly distributed.

For your record, I don't hate the lower incoming people per se. Poorness in the society is like disease that should be cured. The cure is to encourage poor people to be more productive and hence raise their living standards. Redisturbing incoming simpily hand them the product of others hard workd for nothing, which is not fair.

// A better treatment for the grassroots, far from matchable to the living standard of the middle class and the rich. //

Don't get me wrong. I didn't oppose better treatment for the grassroot. What I am opposing is YOUR argument that fairness is the reason for income redistribution. I am perfectly fine of income redistribution as a mean for social engineering, either as social investment to help the poor become more productivity or for stablibility reason so the poor won't turn into criminals.

// How could hevangel suggest that resources (e.g., homes and space of daily activities in the urban areas) should be taken away from the have-nots and transferred to the haves? Where is his conscience? //

They don't own those resource to begin with, how can we take them away? Resource should be taken away from the less productive to the more productive.

// economic rules are the ultimate moral rules, and why efficiency is morally good //

I have already answered your question in my other post. Let me tell you once again, economic rules is what works, and human develope moral to increase efficiency in the very first place. Efficiency is what set us apart from other animals and it is the most important factor for the survival of human race.

// Who don't know that money can buy almost anything (including people's homes and the whole living style) in a capitalist society? But is this a morally "good" society (good for ALL, not just for hevangel and his middle-class friends)? Is this what a society "should" be? Where is the dignity of human, if what they treasure has to be and could only be measured in monetary terms? Does hevangel mean everything has a price, including his soul? //

For your record again, I agree with Walzer's complex equality theory. Money can only buy goods, but not power in an ideal capitalist society. Moreover, diginity is an instrisic value that has nothing to do with external materials, it is a psychological state of mind. You can be poor and have digity or rich but no digity.

// Moreover, compensation would only be paid to the flat owners, not to mention that it would reinforce the idea that monetary values override all other values. How about the non-owner residents? How about those customers of cheaper goods and services? //

What are the other values? You call refuse to move no matter what a value? That's more like irrational stubborness to me. The non-owner residents are living off other's production, the price are kept artifically low because of the lack of development. That's not the true value for that piece of land.

// “現在人大了寧可找間靜靜的酒吧暢談。亦有試過在停車場坐在車頭蓋上談天到天光。”
How can the grassroots afford the expensive pubs, and… cars! //
I bet you didn't see the following line: 什麼地方傾計不重要﹐最重要是有談得來的朋友。

// It may be rational, convenient and efficient for people to spit on the street, as it may be rational for flat owners to sell their rundown flats. But what is rational for an individual is not necessarily rational for society. The economists may prefer to call these “externalities”. The damage to hygiene in the first case and the destroying of a way of life in the second cannot be something called “good”. //

Exactly! Let valuable land become a slum generate externalities to the society, that's why we need to redevelope.

// Is the middle-class going to enjoy cheaper flats in the urban area by demolishing the old districts? Far from it, the news flats in the urban area are becoming ridiculously expensive. Rather, the price of the flats could be more readily regulated by the government’s land sale policy. //

That's why I say HK is not an ideal capitalist society. The government should have less regulation, should only have safety and environment rules on the housing market. The housing supply in HK is kept artifically low.

// In hevangel's logic, why can't triads ask for money from any businessmen, not to mention "honest businessmen". It is very efficient... for the triads! Force is the law of nature for the triads! And anyway, triads like to do things that way! //

That's exactly where government came from first developed in tribal state! The government as the sole most powerful protector is the most efficient way. In a state with a defunced government, such as Somanlia, triads or they call it war lords, is the a very efficent way to provide protection to the public. In the sense, the traid has more or less the same natural as the government. You give them money, they provide you protection.

// Different kinds of residential flats (public housing, HOS, sandwich class housing, low price renovated old private housing, and new private housing) should be allowed in the urban and suburban areas, and the size of the new flats in the urban areas should be restricted so that the limited resources of living space in the urban areas could be more evenly distributed. //

I didn't oppose your housing police if that increase the efficiency for the society, so the resource is more productive. I repeat it again, I am opposing your notation of fairness.

Limiting the size of new flats with regulation will never work. It will only turn the urban area into the new slum and the rich move to the suburb with the business. Let the market determine the best size is the only solution.

Let me repeat once more, I don't concern the technical detail which policy we should follow. What I concern is the principle behind choosing the policy. All policy should be evaulated based on efficiency ulitarianism, which is an objective mean to determine which policy will reason the society most productive.

to: 韋言
I live in Burnaby.

//仲仲有，"若他不能做出一些別人想要的東西﹐在市場中他就是失敗就是沒有價值﹐在現實中就是他會很窮因為沒有人願意給錢給他"...咁做清潔做保安、倒垃圾倒屎塔既人，係咪做緊一d"別人想要的東西呀"？那為什麼他們又沒有價值呀？人地做到死咁，唔通又係懶人？咁，點解又變成你咁q死睇唔起既窮人呀？//

試代答：物以罕為貴。清潔、保安、倒垃圾，所需技術甚低，阿茂阿壽都可做，阿茂阿壽都可被代替，你唔做大把人做，僱主不必擔心請唔到人。佢地唔係「沒有價值」。事實佢地係有糧出。有糧出就表示有價值。一卷廁紙好難賣得貴過一部電視。即使廁紙明明係比電視更基本必需。你諗下點解。

是我錯，嘗試與一個根本沒理解能力的人辯論。

你連重建是誰在做收樓、根據什麼規條、如何運作都唔知，憑什麼指指點點？你對重建區又有什麼認識？住係果度係咩人、人地點樣生活，你又知幾多？你有冇同街坊傾過計？你憑咩認為所有人都只係要錢？

你永遠只會從自己那狹小的井底去看世界。無知，本也不是什麼問題，可惡是無知，卻誤以為自己無所不知，還要把自己偏狹的價值，強加別人身上，別人不同意，就說人地有病、要改造。

你真係自大到無藥可救。人地問什麼、講什麼，你連根本的理解能力都沒有，你的回應只有一個目的，就是維護你的ego。

跟有讀寫障礙的，沒什麼可以再討論下去。你死也不願看看井底以外的世界，也沒有辦法。

至於你的好拍擋"怎"，他的回應沒有人會理會的。本以為你總比他好些，但原來也是一丘之貉。

無錯, 因為供求關係, 及所需技能不是很複雜, 容易入行, 縱使清潔、保安、倒垃圾等工作的人工不是很高, 工作時間長, 有些厭惡性, 也有很多人"去"做. 僱主不必擔心請唔到人. 想深一層, 為何人工不是很高, 工作時間長, 有時還有些厭惡性, 還會有很多人去做? 也反應了一些社會問題, 包括人口結構, 成人教育戰略及香港營商環境. 有很多人去做, 不代表他們真的願意去做, 很多時是沒有選擇. 小生意, 小販已經不再是出路, 若果人到中年(四十以上)因公司倒閉或搬離香港而失業, 就算有少許學歷(中學畢業), 現在想再找到以往做開的工作也有困難. 清潔、保安等工作是沒有選擇中的選擇.

何謂"價值value"? 價值代表了什麼是重要,什麼是不重要. 每個人會有不同的價值. 很多時是不能量化的. 有糧出就表示有價值, 除了經濟價值, 還有什麼價值? 其收入(經濟價值)是否合乎他們付出的勞力或腦力, 對社會的貢獻, 有時真的要看供求, 在這全球化的年代, 很多時都不相稱, 是事實. 富豪後代的二世祖不用做也生活奢華. 專業人仕(如Auditor, 教師)每天工作10小時以上, 平均時薪有時也好不可過M記PartTime很多. 不過不代表不能反思, 不能作出討論, 也不是一句"供求定律"便是Model Answer, 通殺. 在民主社會生活的人民, 反思能力是必須. 社會進步不單在於效率Effciency, 生產力Productivity, 還在於人民反思能力, 我們要不斷修正現有不合理制度.

有糧出就表示有價值已經反映一種價值觀, 在思想後再和大家討論.

呀，對不起，我寫錯字，是的，是「從容」。

現在寫中文，越來越差，真是......

晨