我還以為補地價是買地時一次過給的。

係咪講緊地租？
差佬保護費等等？

The government had held three meetings with four professional bodies (Association of Engineering Professionals in Society Ltd. (AES); Conservancy Association (CA); Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA); and Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE)) to discuss the methods for preserving the Queen's Pier. A report of proposals has been released by The Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau and the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). Option D seems to be the most possible one pointed by the government but is not truly a compromise by the groups concerned, some of the professionals are still struggling and working hard on the feasibility of some possible alternatives. Some private meetings were then held and groups were invited in the name of consultation. We went to the private meeting as a learning experience that we had the opportunity to know what happened inside. The other groups all boycotted this kind of small group private meeting and thus the better public form of consultation in happy valley was held last night.

The pseudo private meeting turned out to be an explanation session held by the government to explain their difficulties rather than a closer study to the issues behind. And it seems to me that the government's attitude is quite firm because in stead of answering some technical questions with details asked by students, officials asked us to refer to the PowerPoint/website and continued to explain their difficulties - mainly cost and time (if delayed, compensation to developers is huge) I do understand that the development was planned in the early 90s so contracts are signed and there are limitations if any thing will change in the development plan but should money the most important aspect to consider a development?

I just think if there is any better alternative that could use money to resolve, shall we consider implement it if it is within a limited cost? Shall we consider whether citizens are willing to pay the cost in monetary term for values they consider significant? Have we ever collaborated with the public in decision making concerning cost (are they not money of HK people)? Shall we include values that cannot be calculated in monetary terms into our discussion and try to develop a language to communicate and a consensus between the two? I just wonder what the point for consultation then is. What does consultation mean?

If the department needs consultation concerning issues on historical significant, cultural and spatial relations, why are elements within this area are not included in their mindset? Nothing within the philosophies and theories within this field was discussed because they have little sense in this language and are reluctant to put these issues in an equal grounding with cost and time. 孫明揚 had pointed out some of his views during the meeting: 1) the Pier and the city hall complex are only built in the 50s and he didn't think they are of any important comparing to many other heritages in Hong Kong. 2) Tourist would not go to visit Queen's Pier; Hong Kong has many other attractions. Someone had mentioned elements such as people, events, collective memories, value, and hermeneutics during the meeting, but they were not discussed and passed back for students to think. (But isn’t it responsibility of the government to let people understand all these?) Therefore we better talked within their language.

There are things within the development that doubts me. As far as I know, the underground of the Pier will be reserved to the building of an Overturn Tunnel (AR EOT) and the Protection Preparation for the Northern Island line (NIL), so it is not very possible to relocate the Pier in situ. Actually the NIL is just a rough alignment between the government and the MTRC, it is not yet in contract base and not yet passed through general consultation at this stage, that means the Pier is to be sacrificed to something not yet thoroughly consulted and firmly decided. However, under the contract of the Phase III development, even the potential NIL will likely to be built in 2016 or even will not be built, the underground of the Pier have to be reserved thus removal of the Pier is necessary. (How ridiculous!)

Personally, I think the Airport Railway Extended Overturn Tunnel and the Northern Island line are quite unnecessary. The existing Tung Chun line and the Island line are more than enough for Central and Wai Chai area, comparing to some major cities in Europe and elsewhere. A lot of places in the area are within walkable distance. Predictably, in 2016, the NIL may relieve some interchange movements in the existing Island line, but I don’t think that is very essential (Who would like to sacrifice a heritage with historical significant to just a less than 3 minutes act for an interchange movement?). I wonder if we think the 3 more (unnecessary) stations to be built: Tamar Station (which is just next to Admiralty station), Exhibition Station (which is just close to Wan Chai station), Victoria Park Station (which is close to CWB and Tin Hau station) are for the convenience of the citizens as explained in the document, then we may be wrong. The rationale behind may not be serving convenience but serving a potential business for the MTRC’s property development on top of the stations and underground shopping mall.

I feel a bit disappointed how the whole development plan has belittled and undermined our historical and natural heritage. It's so sad to see how the official rhetoric has distorted our perceptions of looking at the issue. It seems that we are discoursed to believe that it is normal and justifiable to make way for infrastructure and to sacrifice something for a 'better future' with convenience, civilized prestige, and economic benefits (to whom?). There are certainly things which cannot be calculated in monetary value such as memory, space, community, people and democracy. What I have learned from the meeting is that mistakes were made and things were hard to be changed at this stage but in future planning, there are important issues to consider. 1) The consultation process has to be more transparent and if possible collaboration rather than consultation. 2) Evaluation of public opinions should be researched, documented and published. 3) Civic education is important and the government has the responsibility to equip the public with knowledge to understand planning and development not just in a superficial way. 4) A better election system should be developed.

It seems that many people in Hong Kong have little sense in perceiving space and details, and it is dangerous if younger generations are not encouraged to feel the relation of space within our city. I think the development is problematic. The whole space has been distorted and historical significance destroyed. Star Ferry, Queen's Pier, Noon Day Gun and the Floating Tin Hau Temple are something integral to our daily experience and it is important to understand how our interactions with all these things have evolved into our Hong Kong today. I deem if they are relocated to somewhere else or in museums just for the sake of cultural tourism, their meaning will be lost, like corpus without spirit.

The whole development gives me an image of a little boy who is forced by his parents to give up an old living dog for a new high tech electronic robot dog. I am not a professional but as a common citizen, I feel very sad. Every time I passed by the old Star Ferry site, I feel a strong sense of loss and emptiness. It is heart breaking and it hurts. I lived in the soho area when I was young and I love going to the Star Ferry's Pier and the Queen's Pier and found the area a romantic place to spend an afternoon, it's not just a site, but an experience of that space in relation to an individual in a city. Perhaps many practices in HK do not encourage people to think of their social existence in relation to the city, I just feel so suffocated to imagine a future with a lot of similar building complex with the same restaurants, same entertainments, same brand chains inside but without human touch and without sense of community. Something valuable is disappearing, but they are part of us, part of how we feel our place and part of our memory, part of our spiritual journey of growing up.