規劃過程是政治過程 (planning is political process)-- 這是學規劃學生第一堂課的第一句話. 政治決定技術, 技術服務政治. 這就是規劃的現實! 任何政客, 技術官僚及地產商都明白的道理.

從保護天星運動中, 我們再次看清了香港政府由上而下的統治方式是延續了殖民菁英政治的邏輯. 技術性的(假)咨詢只是統治菁英增加自身 "統治合法性" 的面具. 用各種技術性的藉口, 也不過是要保護己分贓好的利益.

人民發聲了! 不再忍受政府官僚假技術之名來改造城市, 改寫歷史. 親商業, 反小市民的貫用殖民菁英政治被挑戰了, 去殖民的(人民)民主政治被正式被放進香港(人民)民主化的歷史議程.

破壞天星事件後, 任何特首候選人需要向人民交待香港未來的 "新政治" (new politics) 是什麼. 要繼續"殖民菁英統治" 或"去殖民的(人民)民主政治"！？　　

"(原地)修復天星, (原地)保留皇后" 是一種對新政治(與技術無關)的宣誓 , 我們的特首候選人決定了嗎?

yc

人民@民主戰車

對對對，經yc一提，文中未講得清楚的地方就被挑明了。原地保留天星皇后，就是以自身來暴露箇中的政治過程(的暴力)；另地移置，則正好是隱藏了政治的操作，一派昇平。

前者開啟人民參與的契機，後者繼續使人覺得一切理所當然。

檢視歷史，就是要問誰在何時何地如何書寫關於誰。

另謝編輯加相，我呀是已無相可用了。

原地保留天星和皇后碼頭，天星和皇后前不要填海，重置天星碼頭及皇后碼頭的功能，現新天星辟作另其他碼頭。

梁寶，好主意，天后廟的連線，就是英國人登陸前的香港原有海岸線。香港的填海史，也就是始於1841(如沒記錯，1842年南京條約簽署前，就已開始計劃填海)，從此地皮這條中樞神經就植入港人脊椎。

mark完天后廟線，就更要mark之後一道又一道的填海海岸線。去分析一下每次填海的原因、填出來的地賣於誰、作何用途、什麼人被排拒在外，大概就可見所謂的"地少人多，非填海不可"又是myth一大個。

畢竟中環這個如今的所謂城市心臟，就是在英商爭奪沿岸有利位置的邏輯下發展起來的。

By keeping the Piers in the original position, there are so many could be done to add layers in addition to the function and convert that to be a gallery or musuem or somethingelse more.

Only bad architect say that can't be done.
Please come to Feb 4 Forum and we can show you.

Can I display your article on my www.lantaupost.com ?

Loy

U-Beater
You can say that again.

Strongly agree on keeping Queen Harbour!!

H: “// Do we need more shopping malls? Is it "efficient" use of space to have more of the same thing? Should we go to Central rather than some other places, if not the countryside? //
Building shopping malls in Central is not mutually exclusive with going to countryside. Big shopping mall space is high in demand in HK, this is a fact.”

The only evidence H is willing to give is that lands for shopping malls can be sold at a high price, which means high “demand” (of the rich who are willing to pay big money). That’s exactly the one-dimensional thinking considering only money. A thought justifying the segregation of society: poor people, please live and stay in the ghetto and Central is to be left to those who can afford the high price in shopping malls.

H: “// Does the property price really come down after reclamation? Does the government really want the price to come down by reclamation? The coming down of the property price is what the government and the middle class want not! //
As I said before, the land policy in HK is totally screwed and I do agree building a second business district somewhere in N.T. is a better idea than reclamation.”

So, H is not insisting on reclamation, since the only rationale for supporting reclamation is self-defeating: reclamation is not going to bring down the price to an affordable level for the middle class.

H: “The ideal transportation system is call micro-transport system. It combine the best of cars and public transport. The roads is fully automated, people are not allow to drive. Instead they ride on computer controlled mini-cars, providing convenient point-to-point communication with personal space. Routing cars kinda like routing IP packets.”
// “唯一” reflects a kind of the simplistic, reductionist and fundamentalist way of thinking. What if the earth has been dead and we all dead before 零污染汽車 can be invented? Do we really have no other way of reducing pollution at the moment? Which way is more “efficient”? //
Zero emission car is ALREADY invented. All the technology is here. With right the government regulations, research incentive, it can be fully commercialize in less than 10 years. The only problem is the petrol company, they are guarding their fat oil profit. Using less is not more efficient.”

Why doesn’t H advocate for his ideal, but insist on building more roads for the polluting and inefficient cars which are not his ideal? Can’t he see the advocacy of more roads and more convenience for these cars discourages the “advancement” toward his ideal world? Why should the model be stress on “personal space”? Isn’t it again a N. American bias on atom-like individualism?
Is H finally aware of the clout big companies can have in a so-called free market? Does he agree that these companies have to be regulated?
Why using less to achieve the same purpose is not more efficient?

H: “// What is “進步”? What is “退步”? Is the fulfillment of material needs at the expense of spiritual needs “進步”? Is the relegation of human beings into creatures caring ONLY for “survival” “進步”? Is the health problem arising from lack of exercise due to reliance on cars “進步”? Is the long working hours of people due to the pressure of competition “進步”? //
All your complains about spiritual progress is independent of technological progress. Just give you one example, cars. Cars is more convenient and a great time saver. Say, you can save 1 hour per day driving instead of taking the transit, then you can use that 1 hour to play sports and excersie!”

My previous comment was not focusing on cars. But anyway, is the problem of wasting time on traffic (and also driving) more a problem of urban planning? How many hours are the N.American people spending on their private cars per day on average? Hasn’t the cars “created” many unnecessary trips?

H: “// 順帶一題, life will be too easy, simple and also dull if there is only one way of thinking and only one solution for everything. If life is so simple that the so-called "professionals" will become useless and have to be eliminated. //
Who says there is only one solution, there are always many solutions, but all the solutions points to the same directory, innovation. We should aim to do more, but not less. That's is progress.”

Innovation in what sense? We have too many this “big” terms: technology, progress, innovation, which can mean anything. Of course the solution for anything involves changes, i.e., innovation. But innovation does not necessarily mean automation. Does innovation include finding a new way of life other than pure competition and living only for the sake of survival and reproduction?

Imagine the high point of evolution in H’s ideal world of full automation: everyone does nothing and has nothing to do!

Why doing/working more rather than less is progress? Why more is always better than less? Don’t the economists say diminishing marginal return? Anyway, what is progress? Does H aim at working 24hours a day, 7 days a week without rest/relaxation?

// The only evidence H is willing to give is that lands for shopping malls can be sold at a high price, which means high “demand” (of the rich who are willing to pay big money). That’s exactly the one-dimensional thinking considering only money. A thought justifying the segregation of society: poor people, please live and stay in the ghetto and Central is to be left to those who can afford the high price in shopping malls. //

You got it wrong. Price of shopping mall is high because it is high in demand, that's why we should build more to address the market. Central is a business district to begin with, there is no poor residents being displaced. Lands should always be use to fully utilize their value. Just like no one will build public housing right on the land with the best view, it's a waste of the land value.

// So, H is not insisting on reclamation, since the only rationale for supporting reclamation is self-defeating: reclamation is not going to bring down the price to an affordable level for the middle class. //

Reclamation prevent the land price goes up even higher. BTW, all your objections against reclamation are based only on subjective values, which are suitable for planning government policy. Government policy should only consider objective data.

// Why doesn’t H advocate for his ideal, but insist on building more roads for the polluting and inefficient cars which are not his ideal? Can’t he see the advocacy of more roads and more convenience for these cars discourages the “advancement” toward his ideal world? Why should the model be stress on “personal space”? Isn’t it again a N. American bias on atom-like individualism?
Is H finally aware of the clout big companies can have in a so-called free market? Does he agree that these companies have to be regulated?
Why using less to achieve the same purpose is not more efficient? //

Wasting time in traffic and stuffed in the public transport system is NOT efficient at all. Limiting the use of cars is a step back, not forward, we didn't achieve the same purpose, we scarifice convenience. We should build the city to accommodate the culture of cars so people can go anywhere anytime they like easily. Only replacing polluting cars with fuel-efficient, zero emission cars brings efficient, since it achieve exactly the same reason by generating less pollutants.

// My previous comment was not focusing on cars. But anyway, is the problem of wasting time on traffic (and also driving) more a problem of urban planning? How many hours are the N.American people spending on their private cars per day on average? Hasn’t the cars “created” many unnecessary trips? //

Faster cars and better road system is the only way to solve this problem. (personal fly machine is even better, but that's too sci-fi) Unless you are willing to living in a crowded small apartment closer to downtown instead of a comfortable house in the suburb. Land is always limited.

// Innovation in what sense? We have too many this “big” terms: technology, progress, innovation, which can mean anything. Of course the solution for anything involves changes, i.e., innovation. But innovation does not necessarily mean automation. Does innovation include finding a new way of life other than pure competition and living only for the sake of survival and reproduction? //

You are asking the wrong question again. The meaning of life is a question belongs to philosophy or religion, which the government has nothing to do with it. You surely don't want the government tell you what is your meaning of life.

// Imagine the high point of evolution in H’s ideal world of full automation: everyone does nothing and has nothing to do! //

Wrong again. You assume innovation is limited, but in fact it is limitless.

// Why doing/working more rather than less is progress? Why more is always better than less? Don’t the economists say diminishing marginal return? Anyway, what is progress? Does H aim at working 24hours a day, 7 days a week without rest/relaxation? //

If not, then you tell me what is progress.