Outline for Paper 4 – Principles Paper doc/new_papers/paper… · Web viewPollution, elevated highways, lack of access, lack of venue. Too much traffic infrastructure. No vibrancy,

Public Opinion Survey

Designing Hong Kong Harbour District

Building Consensus on Sustainable Planning Principles for the Harbour District

Paper No.3Public Opinion Survey

16 June 2004


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction................................................................................................1

2. Objectives..................................................................................................1

3. Survey Methodology.................................................................................2

4. Summary of Findings................................................................................4

5. Detailed Findings.......................................................................................5

APPENDICES

Appendix A Questionnaire..........................................................................10

Appendix B Summary of Results...............................................................19

Appendix C Detailed Results for Rating Questions..................................30

Appendix D Categorised Comments..........................................................40

Appendix E Detailed Comments to Open Questions................................42


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Designing Hong Kong Harbour District (DHKHD) is a consensus building initiative to design a world-class foreshore in the harbour district for Hong Kong. The study was conducted by GML Consulting (GML), covering a series of interviews with stakeholders, desktop research, a stakeholder workshop and a survey.

1.2 In addition, the EnviroSeries Conference held on 3 May 2004 allowed local and overseas experts to present their views and experiences on the design of the foreshore, land-use infrastructure and institutional issues which are relevant to Hong Kong. The information presented at the Conference has been incorporated together with our own research.

1.3 In this paper, we present the findings of a public opinion survey conducted between April and May 2004. We have organised this report under the following headings:

Objectives Survey Methodology Survey Findings Conclusions.

2. OBJECTIVES

2.1 The objective of the survey was to canvas the views of the public on key issues affecting the Harbour District and to extract quantitative data to either support or refute our research to date.

2.2 The results of the survey will further serve to prioritise the needs of the public in developing the design principles necessary to make the harbour district world-class.

2.3 In many cases, we have encountered different terms to describe the harbour district. The Protected Area of Victoria Harbour is defined in the Harbour Protection Ordinance as the foreshore extending from Tsuen Wan to Tseung Kwan O and from Green Island to Shau Kei Wan on the north and south foreshore respectively. Our definition for this study is taken as the harbour district areas surrounding the protected harbour foreshore from Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter to Kwun Tong, and from Quarry Bay to Sheung Wan. Within the Harbour District itself, the area of greatest concern is the foreshore land and facilities immediately connected with the Harbour, specifically all Government-owned land, facilities and infrastructure directly or indirectly connected with the Harbour.

GML Consulting Limited 1


3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Questionnaire

3.1 The questionnaire was organized under the following headings:

User details What makes the Harbour District world class? What are your views on reclamation of land and reducing the harbour? Planning for the future.

3.2 The questions were initially prepared by GML and subsequently revised based on the comments of various experts and an independent panel of advisors. We would like to take the opportunity to thank those involved who voluntarily gave up their time to help us, in particular, Mr. Michael Golyer, Mr. Christopher Robinson and Dr. W.K Chan.

Target audience

3.3 Our target audience was Hong Kong citizens who cared about the Harbour. We deliberately chose to approach the Chambers of Commerce for inputs from their members who represented both business and personal interests. We also contacted various associations and community groups including Citizens Envisioning @ Harbour and District Councils. Different versions of questionnaires in both English and Chinese were used. Copies of the questionnaire are attached in Appendix A.

Distribution method

3.4 The questionnaire was sent to the following organizations for distribution to their members:

Channel Target Group size

HK General Chamber of Commerce

Chamber committees 630

Australian Chamber of Commerce

All members 800

Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Sustainable Development Committee

40

British Chamber of Commerce

Corporate members 450

American Chamber of Commerce

All members 2000

Friends of the Harbour All members 500

Business Environmental Council

BEC members, SME / members and associate members

68 organisations, representing 1000's of individual businesses

Citizens Envisioning @ Harbour

All members 30



Channel Target Group size

DHKHD Stakeholders 350

District Councils Chairmen 18

Hong Kong Council of Social Service

Members N/A

St. James Settlement Members N/A

Collation

3.5 The period for response was from 15 April 2004 to 22 May 2004. The responses were returned via fax, email and post. In total, 239 responses were received.

Overall

3.6 The summary of results is presented in Appendix B as a grouping of the results for questions 4 (“features of a world-class harbour”), 7 (“statements of importance”) and 9 (“planning for the future”) under three bands of answers:

Unimportant, neutral and important; or Disagree, neutral and agree.

3.7 Using this approach, the majority views on certain issues are clearly presented.

3.8 In all, the survey responses helped consolidate the features for making the Harbour District world-class (as in Question 4 responses) and showed strong support for the statements provided describing the measures in order to do so (as in Question 7).

3.9 In planning for the future (see Question 9), there was also strong support indicated for the key planning principles presented. Under the question of having a single harbour authority, a majority expressed a positive response and a similar majority also voted “yes” for an overall integrated master planning process for the Harbour District.

3.10 Further breakdown of the results for questions 4, 7 and 9 is shown in Appendix C.

3.11 In Appendix D, the comments for the open questions are categorized and the answers summed up under the respective category headings, whilst Appendix E lists out the comments in detail.

User Breakdown

3.12 Out of the 239 responses gathered, the largest group (34.7%) of respondents were aged between 45-59 years, followed by 35-44 (30.5%). Of the respondents, 31% stated professional services as their professional affiliation with the next largest affiliation being government (13%).

3.13 39.7% of the respondents visited the Harbour regularly, almost every day.



4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.1 Through this survey, it can be seen that those surveyed held strong views on what Hong Kong had to do to achieve a world-class harbour, i.e.

Vibrancy Appealing harbour views

Marine tourism and leisure activities

Historic significance

Impressive architecture and building design around the harbour

Environmental quality

A “living” harbour (birds, fishing, etc.)

Activities Wide choice of arts and culture

Green areas/landscaping

Wide range of dining and wining

Plentiful open air spaces

Provision of fun and entertainment

Access Ease of pedestrian access and mobility

Wide range of public transport links

4.2 Of least interest was the need to have Government offices on the foreshore and easy private vehicular access to the Harbour District.

4.3 Those surveyed further disagreed with allowing unplanned development. A strong preference was expressed for more pedestrian accessibility, pedestrian promenades along the entire waterfront, traffic management and alternative routes and minimizing pollution and better urban design.

4.4 Limited reclamation is acceptable provided space is provided for public use and amenities.

4.5 The survey also showed that respondents supported the setting up of a harbour authority or similar statutory body to take charge of all planning and management, including transport infrastructure in the entire Harbour District, that the community should be strongly represented and that a “Chief Planner” be appointed to be in charge of integrated land and transport planning.

4.6 More public consultation, integrated planning and alignment of transport with land-use was called for.



5. DETAILED FINDINGS

What makes Hong Kong Harbour District world-class?

5.1 In this section, for question 4 (see Appendix B) on the importance of certain features for a world-class harbour, all of those listed were important (scoring 60% and above was taken as the criterion) except:

Statement Possible Explanation

“Government offices are nearby” (61.9% stated as unimportant)

Opposition to the building of government offices on Tamar

“Working harbour, supporting industries” (28% stated as unimportant)

Lack of clarity on a future division of the Harbour into a working harbour west of the Star Ferry and a leisure harbour east of the Star Ferry. 28% recognition that the Harbour remains a working harbour supports the need for Hong Kong to focus on its role as a logistics center.

“Wide range of shopping” (28.5% stated as unimportant)

Concern on development of more shopping malls

“Commercial offices can easily access the harbour” (28% stated as unimportant)

Concern on building of more offices on harbour foreshore

“Wide range of sports activities” (25.9% stated as unimportant)

Concern with inward oriented facilities, such as stadia [stadiums?] and cultural centres, on the harbour foreshore which warrants [suggests?] more outward oriented facilities, such as sailing, benefiting from the views

“Residential locations can easily access the harbour” (24.3% stated as unimportant)

Concern on building more residential buildings on harbour foreshore

5.2 Breaking the replies down further (see Appendix C), the top five features are listed below. The percentages in parentheses are the percentage of respondents who rated this feature as “extremely important”.

Appealing harbour views (54.0%) Pedestrian access and mobility (50.6%) Environmental quality (49.4%) Plentiful open spaces (41.0%) Green areas/landscaping (38.5%)

5.3 Amongst these top features (in fact, out of all the listed features), “appealing harbour views” is the only feature that the respondents consider Hong Kong’s Harbour to currently possess (57.7%). In particular, more than 60% of the respondents rated “environmental quality”, “a living harbour”, “green areas/landscaping” and “wide range of sports activities” as absent from the Harbour District.



5.4 Under the “not important at all” category, prominent were “ease of government offices nearby” (36%), “private vehicular access” (10.9%), “commercial offices can access the harbour” (7.9%), “residential locations can access the harbour” (6.3%) and “wide range of shopping” (5.4%). These findings reflect the respondents’ opposition to using the limited foreshore land space for the interests of government, vehicles, commerce, residential development and shopping.

5.5 In the question, “what do you least like about the harbour,” the majority of the 200 responses to this question concerned “pollution”, “lack of facilities for leisure and enjoyment” and “lack of access to harbour front”. This can be attributed to the public concern for deterioration of the harbour quality and the fact that the public cannot currently enjoy the harbour due to lack of facilities and extensive road networks blocking the waterfront.

5.6 Under “any other comments you would like to contribute about the current status of the harbour”, a number of opinions from the 136 responses to this question were offered (see Appendix D), chief amongst these were “no more reclamation”, “benchmark with other cities” and “more pedestrian access”. Opposition to reclamation is clearly the spur for many respondents’ comments, and the availability of other harbours, which have been adapted for public enjoyment, to compare with in overseas cities.

What are your views on the Harbour District?

5.7 For question 7, all of the statements were supported by a majority of respondents (see Appendix B) except “development of the waterfront should take place naturally rather than as large planned and major developments” to which 29.7% disagreed. The possible explanation to this may be the perception that unplanned development would lead to uncoordinated development and loss of control.

5.8 The responses for the top five statements as “strongly agree” (see Appendix C) are listed below:

The Harbour District is one of Hong Kong’s main attractions for tourists (67.4%) Pedestrian promenades should extend along the entire waterfront (56.9%) Traffic management and alternative routes should be considered as part of transport policy

(55.2%) Improving the quality of the Harbour’s water is a top priority (54.4%) Visual intrusion of harbour views should be minimized with building height restrictions, open

spaces and other urban design regulations (53.1%).

5.9 Whilst tourism, accessibility, transport management, environment and urban design are prominently supported, respondents are against unplanned development , which bears the risk of inappropriately designed locations and facilities.



5.10 Other points to note which respondents supported are:

Statement Possible Explanation

“When the Harbour District works for Hong Kong citizens, then we can be sure that tourists will enjoy it too”

This addresses the controversial issue of making the waterfront, West Kowloon, etc. a tourist “showcase”. The sentiment clearly expressed is “make it work for Hong Kong and the tourists will enjoy it too”.

“Landsales around the Harbour should be minimized to allow less roads and more open space, even if this means higher taxes”

The support for this statement suggests that higher taxes are acceptable provided there are less roads i.e. people don’t want roads.

“To enjoy the harbour better, roads along the waterfront should be submerged as much as possible in underground tunnels, even if it costs more”

50% strongly agree that roads should be submerged or underground and 78% agree, even if it costs more. This is of direct importance to planning in Hong Kong and needs to be strongly highlighted.

“Better traffic management, limited loading times, redesigned bus routes and bus stops, revised tunnel charges, and electronic road pricing mechanisms are required to minimize new roads and avoid traffic congestion in the Harbour District”

Support for this statement indicates a strong public interest for alternatives to road building.

“Convenient pedestrian access to the waterfront is more important than maintaining travel speed on roads along the harbour”

A minority (7%) think road travel speeds are more important than pedestrian access.

What are your views on reclamation of land and reducing the harbour?

5.11 47.3% of respondents stated “yes, but under certain conditions”, and 37.2% stated “no, not at all”.

5.12 Of those that stated “yes”, the mains reasons provided for allowing reclamation to take place were “more space for public use including leisure, amenities, beautification etc.” (see Appendix D).

5.13 Of those that stated “no”, the mains reasons provided for not allowing reclamation to take place were “loss of aesthetic and symbolic features” and “inadequate consideration of alternatives” (see Appendix D).

Planning for the future

5.14 The results for this section indicate the respondents’ wishes for visionary and integrated planning with inputs from the public. In general, there was no strong disagreement with any of the provided statements.

5.15 In question 9, all of the statements were supported by a majority of “agree” (see Appendix B). The only point to note is the statement “rather than reclaiming more land, we should re-engineer existing land and infrastructure (even if it costs more)” to which 6.7% of respondents disagreed. The possible reason for this could be the need to know exactly how much the costs would be before forming a decision.



5.16 Respondents provided the following top five “strongly agree” statements on key planning principles for the Harbour District (see Appendix C):

An integrated Harbour District master planning process is needed rather than a project by project approach (58.6%)

Visionary, long term and future thinking instead of cost- and transport led planning (56.5%) Quality of life planning, rather than an engineering-led process is needed (51.9%) Clear analyses of public concerns and willingness to change is needed from planning

authorities in the course of consultation (49.4%) Public must be consulted with alternative planning choices together with clear cost and

environmental implications (48.5%).

Support for a Harbour Authority

5.17 As in ‘Planning for the Future’, the findings indicated the respondents’ concern on ensuring that the public were involved in planning decisions for the harbour particularly in stopping/reducing reclamation.

5.18 4.4% of respondents supported the setting up of a harbour authority or similar statutory body to take charge of all planning and management, including transport infrastructure in the entire Harbour District.

5.19 The “community” was identified as the most appropriate party to lead this initiative (20.5%) while a similar number of respondents supported a joint effort by indicating “all” i.e. government, private sector and community (20.9%).

5.20 51.5% were in favour of a “Chief Planner”, similar in status to the Chief Secretary or Financial Secretary, being appointed to be in charge of integrated land and transport planning.

5.21 77.8% of respondents supported the concept of “an overall integrated master planning process covering the whole of the Harbour District, rather than the current project-based approach”.

5.22 Under the question “what should be the terms of reference of this body; at what level of government should this body report to?”, few respondents answered the first part and the majority gave answers to the second part (see Appendix D).

Those who answered the first part referred to “existing bodies like the Urban Renewal Authority”, “protecting the harbour” and “addressing community needs”.

Those who answered the second part stated that the authority should report to, in descending order of replies received, “the Chief Executive / Chief Secretary” or “the Financial Secretary”.



New approaches to planning for the harbour

5.23 117 respondents provided comments (see Appendix D) to the question “what new approaches do you think should be adopted for Hong Kong’s planning process for the Harbour and its surrounding districts?” The main comments concerned “more public consultation”, followed by “integrated planning” and “alignment of transport with land-use”.

5.24 Under personal suggestions for short-term or intermediate measures to improve the harbour district, “stopping reclamation” figured most highly.

5.25 The findings therefore showed that the notion of setting up a harbour authority was widely supported under the leadership of a Chief Planner who would hold the equivalent rank of the Chief Secretary or the Financial Secretary. The seniority aspect came out strongly in order for the body to have adequate powers for execution of its goals.

Conclusion

5.26 The findings of the survey indicate strong opinions from the respondents on better planning mechanisms to include public views and more robust governance systems through proper institutional arrangements such as the setting up of an independent harbour authority. There was a recurrent theme of opposition towards land use for transport purposes without consideration of alternatives throughout the responses, which should also be noted.



APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE

Part I. English Version

Survey QuestionnaireThank you for helping with this survey on the future of Hong Kong’s Harbour District. The Harbour District includes the Victoria Harbour, the waterfronts AND the surrounding districts. The Harbour District is Hong Kong’s face to the world. It is where visitors spend most time and money. The Harbour District is our international financial and business services district and hosts the majority of our leisure, retail, arts and entertainment facilities, as well as our key asset, Victoria Harbour.

Hong Kong Harbour District

We would like to obtain your views on how the Harbour District should develop. Please read the following statements and fill in your views in the spaces provided.

User Details1. Age group (years)

Below 25 25-34 35-44 45-59 above 60

2. Profession/Affiliation Government Professional Services Academic Construction Finance NGO Manufacturing Real Estate Retail/Hospitality

Transport Others (please state) _________________________________________

3. Are you a frequent visitor of the Harbour District? Regular, almost every day Often, 3-4 times a week Sometimes, 1-2 times a week Rarely Never

What makes the Hong Kong Harbour District World-Class?



4. For each of the following points, please tick to indicate whether you feel it is an important feature of the Harbour District or not? (1 = Not important at all, 2 = Least important, 3 = Moderately important, 4 = Neutral,

5 = Somewhat important, 6 = Very important, 7 = Extremely important)Does the HK Harbour District possess these attributes?

Harbour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes

No Mayb

e

a. Appealing harbour views b. Working harbour, supporting industries c. Marine tourism and leisure activities d. Historic significance e. Impressive architecture and building design around

the harbour

f. Environmental quality

g. Spectacular events

h. A “living” harbour (birds, fishing, etc.)

Waterfront Activities Close to the Harbouri. Wide range of shopping j. Wide choice of arts and culture k. Green areas/landscaping l. Wide range of dining and wining m. Plentiful open air spaces n. Provision of fun and entertainment o. Wide range of sports activities p. Others (please state): ____________________________________________

Access to the Harbour from Surrounding Districtsq. Ease of pedestrian access and mobility r. Wide range of public transport links s. Ease of private vehicular access t. Commercial offices can easily access the harbour u. Residential locations can easily access the harbour v. Government offices are nearby w. Others (please state): ____________________________________________



5. What do you currently NOT like about HK Harbour District (e.g. pollution, traffic, lack of venues)?

6. Any other comments you’d like to contribute about the current state of HK Harbour District? GIVE US YOUR IDEAS.

7. What are your views on the following statements?1 = Strongly Agree, 2= Agree, 3= Neutral, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5a. When the Harbour District works for Hong Kong citizens, then we

can be sure that tourists will enjoy it too

b. The Harbour District is one of Hong Kong’s main attractions for tourists c. Landsales around the Harbour should be minimized to allow less

roads and more open space, even if this means higher taxes

d. Development on the waterfront should take place naturally rather than as large planned and major developments

e. Specific activities (eg. cultural, entertainment) should be distributed around the harbour rather than be clustered in a single area

f. Landmark and outstanding architectural design in public and private buildings should be pursued for all new developments

g. To enjoy the harbour better, roads along the waterfront should be submerged as much as possible in underground tunnels, even if it costs more

h. Better traffic management, limited loading times, redesigned bus routes and bus stops, revised tunnel charges, and electronic road pricing mechanisms are required to minimize new roads and avoid traffic congestion in the Harbour District

i. Traffic management and alternative routes should be considered as part of transport policy

j. Pedestrian promenades should extend along the entire waterfront k. Convenient pedestrian access to the waterfront is more important

than maintaining travel speed on roads along the harbour

l. Visual intrusion of harbour views should be minimized with building height restrictions, open spaces and other urban design regulations

m. Public areas around the harbour should be zoned for public gatherings, events, street and market activities

n. Improving the quality of the Harbour’s water is a top priority o. New approaches are needed to better develop public spaces and

facilities jointly between Government, developers and private operators

What are Your Views on Reclamation of Land and Reducing the Harbour?



8. Should reclamation of land within the Harbour and reduction of the size of the Harbour be allowed?

No, not at all (Go to 8a) Yes, but under certain conditions (Go to 8b) No opinion

a. For what reason(s) do you feel further reclamation of land in the Harbour District should NOT be allowed? GIVE US YOUR IDEAS.

b. For what reason(s) and under what condition(s), do you feel further reclamation of land in the Harbour District should be allowed? GIVE US YOUR IDEAS.

Planning for the Future

9. What would you like to see included as key planning principles for the Harbour District?1 = Strongly Agree, 2= Agree, 3= Neutral, 4 = Disagree, 5 = Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5a. Quality of life planning, rather than an engineering-led

process is needed

b. Visionary, long term and future thinking instead of cost- and transport led planning

c. Early and proactive public involvement for land-use and transport changes in the harbour district

d. Clear analyses of public concerns and willingness to change is needed from planning authorities in the course of consultation

e. Public must be consulted with alternative planning choices together with clear cost and environmental implications

f. An integrated harbour district master planning process is needed rather than a project by project approach

g. Rather than reclaiming more land, we should re-engineer existing land and infrastructure (even if it costs more)

h. Others (please state):

10. Do you support a Harbour Authority or similar statutory body to take charge of all planning and management, including transport infrastructure, in the entire Harbour District?

Yes No Don’t know a. If yes, which parties do you feel should be represented and who should lead this body?

Government Private sector Community Others (please state) _______________b. Should a Chief Planner (similar in status to the Chief Secretary or Financial Secretary) be in charge

of integrated land and transport planning for Hong Kong, or at least the key projects such as West Kowloon, the Harbour District and Lantau?

Yes No Don’t know 11. What should be the terms of reference of this body? At what level of government should this body report to?



12. Do you support the concept of an overall integrated master planning process covering the whole Harbour District, rather than the current approach of project based approach?Yes No Unsure/Don’t know

13. What new approaches do you think should be adopted for Hong Kong’s planning process for the Harbour and its surrounding districts? GIVE US YOUR IDEAS.

14. Do you have any personal suggestions for short-term or intermediate measures that should be considered to improve the Harbour District while any major construction is in progress?

15. If you would like more information or want to help with the Harbour District initiative please give us your name and contact details. (This is optional)

Thank you. Please return to GML Consulting (Fax: 2827 2011 or Email: [email protected]).



Part II. Chinese Version

問卷調查多謝您支持這份為香港的「海港區」的未來整體性的規劃而進行的問卷調查。我們的「海港區」包括維多利亞港、海傍及其週邊區域。「海港區」是展現香港萬象姿采、中西文化薈萃的重要一面，亦是遊客必到的景點；林立的商店帶給遊客們無限的購物享受。「海港區」是香港的國際金融及商務中樞，並提供本地各主要消閒、零售、藝術及娛樂設施；而維多利亞港更是我們的最重要資產。

香港海港區我們希望藉此讓您表達您對「海港區」未來發展的意見。請細閱以下各項問題，選擇適當的答案或在空白位置上填上您的意見。統計資料1. 年齡組別

25 歲以下 25-34 35-44 45-59 60 或以上 2. 職業/聯繫

政府專業服務學者建築財務非牟利/志願機構製造地產零售/酒店及飲食業

運輸其他 (請說明) __________________________________________

3. 您是否經常到「海港區」?

定期，差不多每天時常，每星期三至四次有時，每星期一至二次偶然從未



如何使我們的「海港區」成為世界級?

4. 請評價以下項目是否「海港區」的重要特色?

1 = 完全不重要, 2 = 不重要, 3 =不大重要, 4 =無意見, 5 = 有點重要, 6 頗重要, 7 = 非常重要香港的「海港區」是否具備這些特色?

海港 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 有沒有不肯定

a. 懾人心弦的景色 b. 運作港，可支援各相關工業 c. 航海旅遊及消閒活動 d. 歷史的重要性 e. 在海港範圍內有宏偉的建築物 f. 環境質素 g. 多姿多采的盛事 h. 具有生活情趣 (如雀鳥、垂釣等)

海港一帶的海濱活動i. 一應俱全的購物地方 j. 各式各樣的文化藝術 k. 城市綠洲/園林景色 l. 應有盡有的佳餚美點 m. 充足的戶外空間 n. 備有玩樂的設施 o. 各種康樂運動 p. 其他 (請註明): _____________________________________

從圍繞地區直達海港q. 行人可容易直達海濱 r. 廣闊的公共交通網絡 s. 私家車輛可容易進入 t. 從商業寫字樓可容易到達 u. 從住宅樓宇可容易到達 v. 從政府辦公室可容易到達 w. 其他 (請註明):_____________________________________

5. 您對現在的「海港區」有什麼不喜歡之處 (如污染、交通、缺乏設施等)?



6. 您對「海港區」的現有狀況有沒有其他的意見? 請說明。

7. 您對以下各項有什麼意見？1 =完全同意 , 2 = 同意 , 3 =無意見 , 4 =不同意 , 5 =完全不同意

1 2 3 4 5a. 若香港的「海港」能令市民心動，那麼可肯定遊客也會被其魅力所吸引

b. 「海港區」是香港最主要旅遊景點之一 c. 縱使政府要增加稅收，鄰近海港的賣地活動也應減至最低以減少道路

的需求及增加戶外空間

d. 海傍應予以「自然」發展，而不應作大規模發展 e. 特定的活動 (例如文化、娛樂等) 應圍繞海港一帶分佈，而不應聚集於單一地點

f. 發展新項目時應考慮建設一些公共或私人的宏偉建築物 / 地標 g. 縱使成本較高，沿海的道路應建於地底，務求市民 / 遊人能欣賞到美麗的海港

h. 除了道路規劃外，「海港區」的道路亦需要妥善的控制方案，及設立用者自負的措施

i. 管理交通的其他方案應納入交通政策考慮範圍 j. 海濱長廊應沿著整個海傍伸延 k. 令行人容易地到達海傍比控制沿海擠塞的交通更為重要 l. 利用建築物高度的限制、戶外空間及其他城市設計的規則來減少阻礙欣賞維港景色的建設

m. 鄰近海港的公眾地方應劃作公眾聚會、舉辦盛事或跳蚤市場的用途 n. 改善維港的水質是首要的事項 o. 為改善公眾地方的發展及其設施，政府、發展商及私營者應提出新的共識方案。

您對填海及把維港的面積縮小有何意見?

8. 應否准許在維港範圍內填海及把維港的面積縮小?

絕對不可 (續 8a) 可以，但要符合某些情況 (續 8b) 無意見

a. 您認為是什麼原因不應准許在「海港區」作進一步的填海？

b. 您認為是什麼原因及基於那種情況下可准許在「海港區」作進一步的填海？



為未來規劃9. 您是否同意以下各項為「海港區」主要的規劃原則?

1 =完全同意 , 2 = 同意 , 3 =無意見 , 4 =不同意 , 5 =完全不同意1 2 3 4 5

a. 需要高生活質素的規劃而不是以工程作主導的程序

b. 具有高瞻遠見及為未來而規劃，不應單是為成本及運輸而制定的規劃

c. 需要更改土地用途或運輸網絡時，應儘早讓公眾積極參與、反映意見

d. 在咨詢過程中，有關當局應清楚聆聽及分析公眾訴求並願意作出適當的修改

e. 必須咨詢公眾對其他規劃選擇的意見，並提交意見表達成本及對環境的相關影響

f. 讓海港區在設計及規劃中成為一個整體，而非單一或個別的工程項目

g. 應重新規劃現有土地及基建工程，而不應只進行填海以取得更多用地

h. 其他 (請註明):

10. 您是否支持成立管理局或相近的法定團體來負責整個「海港區」的劃現和管理，包括運輸基建？是否不肯定

a. 若選擇「是」，您認為這團體應該由以下那界別代表? 及應該由誰領導?政府工商界民間其他 (請說明) ________________

b. 香港的整體土地及運輸規劃 (或至少主要項目如西九龍、「海港區」及大嶼山項目) 應由職級與政務司或財政司相若的總規劃師負責？

是否不肯定

11. 這團體的責任範圍應包括哪些方面及應向政府哪職級負責？

12. 您是否支持以綜合的方式為整個「海港區」進行規劃，而不是以現在的個別項目方案進行?是否不肯定

13. 您認為香港應採用那些新方案去規劃我們的海港及其週邊區域？

14. 於「海港區」的主要工程進行其間，您可否提出一些可作短/中期改善環境的措施？

15. 如欲索取「共創我們的海港區」的其他資料或參與這項行動，請提供您的姓名、聯絡地址及電話。GML Consulting Limited 18


多謝您完成這問卷，請交還GML Consulting (傳真: 2827 2011) 。



APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF RESULTS

USER DETAILS

1. Age Group

Below 25 3.8%

25-34 16.7%

35-44 30.5%

45-59 34.7%

Above 60 4.6%

Unanswered 9.6%

2. Profession Affiliation

Government 13.0%

Professional Services 31.0%

Academic 4.6%

Construction 5.9%

Finance 8.4%

NGO 2.1%

Manufacturing 2.5%

Real Estate 4.6%

Retail/Hospitality 2.5%

Transport 4.6%

Others 9.2%

Unanswered 11.7%

3. Are you a frequent visitor of the Harbour District (HD)?

Regular, almost every day 39.7%

Often, 3-4 times a week 13.8%

Sometimes, 1-2 times a week 26.4%

Rarely 10.9%

Never 0%

Unanswered 9.2%



WHAT MAKES THE HONG KONG HARBOUR DISTRICT WORLD-CLASS?

4. Please indicate whether you feel it is an important feature of the HD or not?

Harbour

a. Appealing harbour views

88.7%

0.0%

2.9%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

b. Working harbour, supporting industries

46.4%

15.9%

28.0%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

c. Marine tourism and leisure activities

78.2%

6.3%

5.9%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

d. Historic significance

72.8%

9.6%

7.1%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

e. Impressive architecture and building design around the harbour

79.1%

4.6%

7.9%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant


85.8%

1.7%

4.2%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant




59.4%

18.8%

13.0%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant


72.0%

10.0%

9.2%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

Waterfront Activities Close to the Harbour

i. Wide range of shopping

47.7%

15.9%

28.5%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

j. Wide choice of arts and culture

70.3%

12.1%

9.2%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

k. Green areas/ landscaping

83.7%

3.8%

4.6%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

l. Wide range of dining and wining

77.4%

7.9%

6.7%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant



m. Plentiful open air spaces

85.8%

2.5%

3.8%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

n. Provision of fun and entertainment

69.0%

14.2%

8.4%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

o. Wide range of sports activities

42.3%

23.4%

25.9%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

p. Others

Access to the Harbour from Surrounding Districts

q. Ease of pedestrian access and mobility

86.6%

2.1%

3.3%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

r. Wide range of public transport links

80.8%

4.6%

6.7%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

s. Ease of private vehicular access

39.3%

18.0%

34.7%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant



t. Commercial offices can easily access the harbour

45.2%

18.8%

28.0%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

u. Residential locations can easily access the harbour

51.0%

16.3%

24.3%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

v. Government offices are nearby

9.6%

20.5%

61.9%

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

5. What do you currently NOT like about the Harbour District?

% of respondents filled in comments 84.1%

6. Any other comments you’d like to contribute about the current state of the Harbour District?




7. What are your views on the following statements?

a. When the Harbour District works for Hong Kong citizens, then we can be sure that tourists will enjoy it too

76.2%

9.6%

5.9%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

b. The Harbour District is one of Hong Kong’s main attractions for tourists

82.0%

3.8%

6.3%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

c. Landsales around the Harbour should be minimized to allow less roads and more open space, even if this means higher taxes

67.8%

15.5%

8.8%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


37.7%

24.7%

29.7%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


54.0%

27.2%

10.5%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


67.4%

14.2%

10.0%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree




72.8%

12.1%

5.9%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

h. Better traffic management, limited loading times, redesigned bus routes and bus stops, revised tunnel charges, and electronic road pricing mechanisms are required to minimize new roads and avoid traffic congestion in the Harbour District 77.4%

8.4%

5.9%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


82.4%

5.4%

3.8%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

j. Pedestrian promenades should extend along the entire waterfront

80.8%

3.8%

7.5%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

k. Convenient pedestrian access to the waterfront is more important than maintaining travel speed on roads along the harbour

67.4%

15.5%

7.5%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


80.8%

6.3%

4.6%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


75.7%

13.4%

2.9%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree



n. Improving the quality of the Harbour’s water is a top priority

79.9%

7.1%

5.0%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

o. New approaches are needed to better develop public spaces and facilities jointly between Government, developers and private operators

82.4%

5.9%

3.3%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ON RECLAMATION OF LAND AND REDUCING THE HARBOUR?

8. Should reclamation of land within the Harbour and reduction of the size of the Harbour be allowed?

No, not at all 37.2%

Yes, but under certain conditions 47.3%

No opinion 2.5%

a. For what reason(s) do you feel further reclamation of land in the Harbour District should NOT be allowed?


b. For what reason(s) and under what condition(s), do you feel further reclamation of land in the Harbour District should be allowed?




PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

9. What would you like to see included as key planning principles for the Harbour District?

a. Quality of life planning, rather than an engineering-led process is needed

81.6%

6.7%

2.9%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


83.3%

5.4%

2.1%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


80.8%

5.9%

3.8%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


81.2%

7.1%

2.5%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


81.6%

6.7%

2.5%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree




82.8%

5.4%

2.1%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


69.5%

14.2%

6.7%

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

10. Do you support a Harbour Authority or similar statutory body to take charge of all planning and management, including transport infrastructure, in the entire Harbour District?

Yes 64.4%

No 11.3%

Don’t know 15.1%

a. If yes, which parties do you feel should be represented and who should lead this body?

Government 7.1%

Private Sector 3.3%

Community 20.5%

All (Government, Private Sector and Community) 20.9%

Others 2.5%

b. Should a Chief Planner (similar in status to the Chief Secretary or Financial Secretary) be in charge of integrated land and transport planning for Hong Kong, or at least the key projects such as West Kowloon, the Harbour District and Lantau?

Yes 51.5%

No 11.3%

Don’t know 19.2%



11. What should be the terms of reference of this body? At what level of government should this body report to?


12. Do you support the concept of an overall integrated master planning process covering the whole Harbour District, rather than the current approach of project based approach?

Yes 77.8%

No 1.7%

Unsure/Don’t know 6.3%

13. What new approaches do you think should be adopted for Hong Kong’s planning process for the Harbour and its surrounding districts?


14. Do you have any personal suggestions for short-term or intermediate measures that should be considered to improve the Harbour District while any major construction is in progress?




APPENDIX C DETAILED RESULTS FOR RATING QUESTIONS

WHAT MAKES THE HONG KONG HARBOUR DISTRICT WORLD-CLASS?

4. Please indicate whether you feel it is an important feature of the HD or not?

Does the HD possess these attributes?

Harbour Yes No Maybe

a. Appealing harbour views

2.1%

0.0%

0.8%

4.2%

30.5%

54.0%

0.0%

Not important at all

Least important

Moderately important

Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important

Extremely important57.7% 6.7% 19.7%

b. Working harbour, supporting industries

5.0%

10.0%

13.0%

21.3%

14.2%

10.9%

15.9%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


c. Marine tourism and leisure activities

1.7%

1.3%

2.9%

15.1%

34.3%

28.9%

6.3%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


d. Historic significance

0.8%

2.1%

4.2%

27.2%

25.9%

19.7%

9.6%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important




Harbour (Cont’d) Yes No Maybe

e. Impressive architecture and building design around the harbour

0.8%

2.9%

4.2%

22.6%

30.5%

25.9%

4.6%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important



1.3%

1.3%

1.7%

10.0%

26.4%

49.4%

1.7%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important



1.7%

4.2%

7.1%

29.7%

15.9%

13.8%

18.8%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important



2.1%

2.9%

4.2%

19.2%

28.9%

23.8%

10.0%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important




Waterfront Activities Close to the Harbour Yes No Maybe

i. Wide range of shopping

5.4%

10.0%

13.0%

21.3%

19.7%

6.7%

15.9%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


j. Wide choice of arts and culture

0.8%

1.7%

6.7%

30.1%

28.0%

12.1%

12.1%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


k. Green areas/landscaping

0.8%

1.3%

2.5%

10.0%

35.1%

38.5%

3.8%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


l. Wide range of dining and wining

0.8%

1.7%

4.2%

26.4%

30.5%

20.5%

7.9%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important




Waterfront Activities Close to the Harbour (Cont’d) Yes No Maybe

m. Plentiful open air spaces

1.3%

0.4%

2.1%

6.7%

38.1%

41.0%

2.5%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


n. Provision of fun and entertainment

1.3%

1.7%

5.4%

28.9%

27.6%

12.6%

14.2%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


o. Wide range of sports activities

2.9%

9.6%

13.4%

24.7%

9.2%

8.4%

23.4%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


p. Others

Access to the Harbour from Surrounding Districts

q. Ease of pedestrian access and mobility

1.3%

1.7%

0.4%

5.4%

30.5%

50.6%

2.1%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important

Extremely important 19.7% 43.1% 18.4%



Access to the Harbour from Surrounding Districts (Cont’d) Yes No Maybe

r. Wide range of public transport links

1.3%

1.3%

4.2%

14.6%

34.3%

31.8%

4.6%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


s. Ease of private vehicular access

10.9%

11.3%

12.6%

24.3%

9.2%

5.9%

18.0%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


t. Commercial offices can easily access the harbour

7.9%

9.6%

10.5%

26.4%

13.8%

5.0%

18.8%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


u. Residential locations can easily access the harbour

6.3%

7.5%

10.5%

29.3%

15.5%

6.3%

16.3%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important




Access to the Harbour from Surrounding Districts (Cont’d) Yes No Maybe

v. Government offices are nearby

36.0%

15.9%

10.0%

6.7%

1.7%

1.3%

20.5%


Least important


Neutral

Somewhat important

Very important


7. What are your views on the following statements?

a. When the Harbour District works for Hong Kong citizens, then we can be sure that tourists will enjoy it too

51.5%

24.7%

9.6%

2.1%

3.8%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

b. The Harbour District is one of Hong Kong’s main attractions for tourists

67.4%

14.6%

3.8%

3.3%

2.9%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

c. Landsales around the Harbour should be minimized to allow less roads and more open space, even if this means higher taxes

41.8%

25.9%

15.5%

2.5%

6.3%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree




17.2%

20.5%

24.7%

11.3%

18.4%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


20.1%

33.9%

27.2%

1.7%

8.8%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


31.0%

36.4%

14.2%

3.8%

6.3%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


49.8%

23.0%

12.1%

1.7%

4.2%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

h. Better traffic management, limited loading times, redesigned bus routes and bus stops, revised tunnel charges, and electronic road pricing mechanisms are required to minimize new roads and avoid traffic congestion in the Harbour District

49.0%

28.5%

8.4%

2.5%

3.3%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree




55.2%

27.2%

5.4%

2.1%

1.7%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

j. Pedestrian promenades should extend along the entire waterfront

56.9%

23.8%

3.8%

2.9%

4.6%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

k. Convenient pedestrian access to the waterfront is more important than maintaining travel speed on roads along the harbour

41.0%

26.4%

15.5%

2.1%

5.4%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


53.1%

27.6%

6.3%

2.5%

2.1%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


35.1%

40.6%

13.4%

0.8%

2.1%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree



n. Improving the quality of the Harbour’s water is a top priority

54.4%

25.5%

7.1%

2.9%

2.1%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

o. New approaches are needed to better develop public spaces and facilities jointly between Government, developers and private operators

51.0%

31.4%

5.9%

2.1%

1.3%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

9. What would you like to see included as key planning principles for the Harbour District?

a. Quality of life planning, rather than an engineering-led process is needed

51.9%

29.7%

6.7%

1.3%

1.7%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


56.5%

26.8%

5.4%

0.8%

1.3%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


43.1%

37.7%

5.9%

0.4%

3.3%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree




49.4%

31.8%

7.1%

0.4%

2.1%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


48.5%

33.1%

6.7%

2.1%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree


58.6%

24.3%

5.4%

1.3%

0.8%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree


44.8%

24.7%

14.2%

1.3%

5.4%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree



APPENDIX D CATEGORISED COMMENTS

Q 5. What do you not like about the Harbour District? No. of responses

1 Too much pollution 922 Lack of facilities for leisure and enjoyment 623 Lack of access to the harbour front 544 Too much traffic 325 Lack of open space 296 Lack of access along the harbour front 277 Lack of aesthetic appeal 278 Too much reclamation 239 Poor water quality 2010 Too much infrastructure 1011 Lack of visual access 712 Other 7

Q 6. Suggestions to improve the current state of the Harbour District

1 No more reclamation 182 Look at other cities 183 Less roads, more pedestrian access 174 More landscaping 155 More tourist facilities 156 Less development 127 Need a master plan 118 Clean up the harbour 99 Long promenade 810 Relocate facilities 511 Increase marine use 312 Increase visual access 213 Establish a harbour authority 214 More roads 215 More public consultation 216 Other 1

Q 8a. Reasons for NOT allowing reclamation1 Loss of symbolic and aesthetic features 232 Consider alternatives first 213 Avoid more infrastructure 144 Retain HK’s history 115 Avoid impacts on marine activities 116 Reduce commercial exploitation 97 Keep for tourists 48 Other 9



Q 8b. Reasons for allowing further reclamation1 More leisure and pedestrian facilities needed 402 More buildings 233 More traffic infrastructure needed 194 More space needed 185 More landmarks 156 Other 4

Q 11. Level of Harbour Authority – should report to:1 Chief Executive / Chief Secretary 542 Legislative Council 113 Other 114 Financial Secretary 45 Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands 46 Town Planning Board 2

Q 13. New approach to be adopted for planning1 More public consultation 402 Integrated planning 233 More multistakeholder involvement 144 Align transport policy with land use 145 Emphasis on quality of life 126 More transparency 117 Consider international best practice 98 More joined-up government 5

Q 14. Measures to improve the Harbour District while major construction is in progress

1 Stop reclamation 242 More landscaping 203 Reduce pollution 144 Limit traffic 145 Improve accessibility 76 Encourage more tourism 57 More education on harbour 48 Limit building height 39 Beautify the District 610 Relocate facilities 211 Other 15



APPENDIX E DETAILED COMMENTS TO OPEN QUESTIONS

Q 5. What do you currently NOT like about HK Harbour District?

1. It is mostly unfriendly to pedestrians, long distances to walk, barrier, air vents blast you as you walk by (Wanchai).

2. Lack of access to the waterfront (new open space, roads take precedent over pedestrians, especially disabled/young families. Lack of al-fresco dining and greenery.)

3. Water pollution, lack of landscaping.4. Pollution; the continued filling in; the move towards it becoming more like a dirty

river; non magnificent harbour which HK lacks its name from.5. Pollution, traffic, lack of alfresco, lack of easy pedestrian access, lack of

shelter/landscaping, lack of street entertainment (informal), and lack of character at the street level - a sterile and dirty environment e.g. TST East.

6. Lack of venues and meaningful space/buildings.7. Traffic.8. Pedestrian areas in central locations with F&B outlets - attractive - alfresco dining

(e.g. Boat Quay ~ Clarke Quay in Singapore).9. Lack of open space for fun and entertainment.10. Seems that 30% of the waterfront is highway; so little of it is accessible by foot.11. Poor pedestrian access, lack of dining and other venues; traffic is bad.12. It is not pedestrian friendly. Can't walk from one part to another without going up and

down and around and stopping and waiting.13. Lack of attractive entertainment places.14. Too much bus traffic.15. Air pollution and water pollution.16. Very limited access to harbor front; air quality is suboptimal because of the heavy

concentration of roads along the harbor front; boat traffic along both shores between Wanchai and Kennedy Town is very congested.

17. Lack of public access to harbour. No walkway/bicycle path around harbourfront. No green space, trees or benches.

18. Rough sea.19. Pollution and traffic.20. Amazing harbour with not enough to do - why no business on the Central shore -

alfresco dining, tourist shopping etc.21. Poor access - lack of harbour front walking, sitting facilities. Waterfront architecture

mostly dull.22. Pollution.23. Pollution and reclamation, disrespect for history, heritage and current/future HK

dwellers.24. The harbour itself is getting narrower. The district is not planned to the advantage of

general public. High level of pollution , especially bad on Sundays.25. Lack of area near the harbour for seeing the HK view.26. Pollution, too many tall buildings around the coastal line.27. Poor public realm, no aesthetic elements, no user friendly public open space.28. Pollution, lack of pedestrian access, good fob support.29. Excessive pollution from marine craft - emissions. Poor quality of waterfront design -

both physical elements and range of activities. Absence of waterfront promenade.30. Bad access, everything is cement, no restaurants (torn the rooftops of the ferry

terminals into good restaurant). Bad air pollution (need to get rid of diesel).



31. Too many tall building causing noise and air pollution.32. Reclamation.33. Water pollution. Crowded with tall buildings.34. Too much concrete. No open grass areas. No outdoor dining. Water pollution and no

soul.35. The pollution is appalling on HK side; there is no promenade, nowhere to sit and

enjoy being by the sea. No sea-side café, no "fisherman's wharf" and - worst of all - the little we have is shrinking!

36. Hong Kong is not using both sides of the harbour to their full advantage other than in Central and TST.

37. Water pollution, traffic jams, full of highrise buildings at waterfront. Lack of open venues assessed to public; high traffic corridor blocked the harbour review, etc.

38. No nicely designed foreshore on HK side with green areas, cafes, restaurants etc.39. Pollution.40. Pollution.41. Lack of coastal park.42. Pollution (water and air). Lack of accessibility and lack of dining facilities.43. Lack of access, noise, dirt, pollution. No green areas or walking paths, no

refreshment areas.44. Too much traffic, too much air pollution, water pollution of harbour.45. Lack of access. Lack of connection to the water. Lack of activities. Lack of

buskers/artists. Too many industrial boats. Too choppy (water).46. At present the harbour district is simply the furthest perimeter of dense urban

development, when it should be, and has the potential to become a major area for recreation and tourism.

47. Too polluted, no comfortable place to enjoy an afternoon by the harbour - not enough trees, flowers and nature.

48. There is limited access and the water quality is still poor. The raised roadway (Eastern Corridor) along North Point is hideous, a total eye sore to every tourist taking a harbour tour. Where else in the world would a town planning board even consider duplicating such mistake?

49. The complete waste of prime space that is given over to car parks, bus stations, inaccessible fenced off areas - lack of venues, all the concrete. Views obscured by pollution.

50. Can't walk for long distances, or bike as rollarblade; no restaurants, all concrete poor access, ugly facilities along waterfront. Water pollution.

51. Not easily accessible. Depressing seeing all the work being done to reclaim the harbour. The public pier (Blake Pier) area is very ugly.

52. It is unattractive in the physical man made surroundings which is sad.53. Existing water (odor) pollution - has improved a bit over the years. There are very

few locations where the harbour area is actually viewable without obstruction for the general public, even in Shau Kei Wan (Aldrich Bay) area the road prevails. There is a lack of venues, planners are over protective, hiding the harbour and view behind various annoying obstructions.

54. Lack of meaningful and quality-of-life amenities. Can't participate, would like to.55. Pollution. Getting smaller and smaller. Not enough green areas.56. Pedestrian surface along only a very small percentage of the harbour width.57. Very polluted, cannot be enjoyed in the same way as Sydney harbour. It is beautiful

but it stinks.58. a) Lack of access or places to walk / sit / eat by harbourside.

b) Air and water pollution.c) Focus on "old" HK needs rather than "new" HK needs (e.g. recreation, tourism).



59. It is polluted, dull and not made best use of, ie no bus walk. Open space is dull and lifeless . Why bus depots on prime waterfront areas.

60. Lack of pedestrian access; pollution; lack of landscape.61. Dirty, polluted, uneventful, nothing happens.62. -Lack of sea frontage. Suggestion (1) Open up those hoarding or use transparent

hoarding along the sea frontage rather than solid fencing. (2) Open the roof of the piers to the public.'-Sea water smell badly.

63. Pollution is very bad, especially the harbour water quality. Lack of landscaping - more trees are needed to soften the concrete jungle!

64. Pollution, ugly, too much concrete, no "real" parks or gardens, insufficient trees.65. For "wide range of public transport links" and "ease of private vehicular access" - we

need a bypass - i.e. not direct access to the waterfront.66. Poor access, pollution, very few restaurants.67. Use of prime sites by non-prime facilities. Poor architecture in (old) buildings, poor

pedestrian access, highways adjacent to the water.68. The reclamation process has completely blocked the harbour frontage. This is ugly

and will become increasingly more so if the reclamation continues.69. Too many tour buses parked with engines on. Litter, spitting, groups of "religious"

meetings.70. Pollution, traffic, lack of events, Non-attractions.71. No alfresco dining - concrete walkways lack character.72. It is unattractive, concreted area, polluted and no dining.73. No open park spaces, ie kick a ball, fly a kite with kids74. Pollution75. Inability to get at the waterfront ; no real facilities when you get there.76. Pollution, difficult to access and move about as pedestrian on HK side. No real green

areas77. Lack of public access, no parks, no café areas as in Stanley and Gold Coast. Too

many dirty diesel ferries, too much commercial traffic, no real harbour, feeling more like a river.

78. Too much vehicle provision over pedestrians.79. Pollution.80. Lack of outdoor venues for entertainment/tourist related activities; pollution; lack of

parking (Kowloon).81. Pollution. Lack of pedestrian access and mobility, lack of green and open air spaces.

Commercial needs have sadly overtaken the needs of the ordinary person.82. Pollution - water traffic - lack of pedestrian only walkway along the waterfront.83. Too much pollution, including water, air, visual; reclamation is too intense. The

harbour capacity is occupied mainly by commercial and trading activities but not for more meaningful and greenery purposes.

84. Lack of access and outside amenities.85. Traffic, lack of dining/drinking facilities, no green areas, pollution.86. I strongly disagree with the wide area of landfill between Wanchai and Central.

Government should construct submerged lanes and 2 layers of traffic, not building new roads on reclaimed land.

87. No access to harbour. No Singapore style/Sydney style F&B and entertainment and parkland. Awful highways (Connaught Road) that slice the waterfront into ribbons.

88. Lack of connectivity on either side.89. Pollution; buildings/roads prevent pedestrian access.90. Hong Kong harbour is still beautiful. But stop further reclamation work, except limited

relief for traffic congestion in Central. Beautiful coastline with promenades, green



spaces and parks.91. Too many tall/big buildings along harbour front. Too crowded with traffic created by

the big buildings. Too much reclamation destroying the shore line. Too much offloading of cargo - it can be shifted to somewhere else.

92. Lack of relaxing area; lack of open air cafés, dinning; lack of greens.93. Lack of venues.94. Access, piecemeal development (except Convention Centre), pollution.95. Pollution - very poor landscaping; too many concrete.96. Pollution, lack of harbour side restaurants and facilities, lack open area.97. Very little is available - what has been destroyed by poor planning, traffic, ferry piers,

roads, pollution, no restaurants or cafés or green spaces.98. Lack of planning.99. The HK harbour district is very functional and utilitarian; lack comprehensive

planning - with our urban design vision, resulting in a polluted, congested and activities lacking in the harbour district.

100. It is used as a direct influence on the economy rather than lifestyle etc. Sydney has got the balance right.

101. Pollution, traffic, lack of venues, access and green space.102. Lack of waterfront, dining and entertainment; land reclamation plans.103. Pollution, lack of walkways, lack of cafés /eating facilities. Too much noise. Just a

complete lack of harbour usage as a feature.104. Water and air pollution; should have outside dining opportunities.105. Pollution, lack of green areas for relaxation, lack of activities for visitors e.g. cycling,

marine tourism, historical information, pleasant promenades, open air dining, lack of areas for small entertainers.

106. Waste of space allowed to entities which should not be there e.g. Government buildings

107. Not accessible, broken skyline.108. Smelly water; lack of open spaces; lack of view corridor to the harbour.109. No space for seating. Most of the accessible harbour space is occupied by ferry

services.110. Pollution not easily measurable for some areas.111. Inaccessible, not attractive in terms of leisure activities.112. Commercial buildings are too tall and not compatible with surroundings.

Bad water quality.Marine traffic development is backward.

113. No open space for people. Poor transportation link. Pollution problem owing to heavy traffic. Not enough leisure activities and supporting shops etc.

114. Pollution, traffic noise/fumes, lack of venues, lack of access.115. Lack of pedestrian waterfront, leisure and recreation facilities and access116. Access difficulties and pollution.117. Water quality is not acceptable. The water is too "choppy" for yacht sailing, boating

or ferry to moor for getting aboard etc.118. Hong Kong Island side is inaccessible.119. Uniform, concrete, unattractive based on low maintenance for Government Bodies.120. Inaccessible, boring where it is accessible, ugly access (not pedestrian friendly),

pollution.121. Poor environmental conditions for people.122. Pollution, traffic, lack of activities, sports and leisure activities, transport led.123. Everything.124. Lack of activities.



125. Polluted water and lack of leisure spaces.126. Lack of venues.127. Traffic; lack of pedestrian access.128. Lack of space/venue for events; poor accessibility; lack of a vision for harbour.129. Pollution, irregular height of building, lack of harmony, lack of specific theme or

landmark.130. Pollution, elevated highways, lack of access, lack of venue.131. Too much traffic infrastructure.132. No vibrancy, lack of access, homogenous planning, roads everywhere.133. Lack of venues and access to harbour in most areas.134. Not easy to access.135. Pollution, traffic, lack of venues.136. Pollution, lack of public access, lack of attractive features.137. Not really accessible.138. Too little landscaping and green areas.139. Accessibility and urban design.140. Lack of venues and identity except a small part in Centre and TST.141. Cargo handling, elevated loads.142. Basically, nothing is there.143. Foul smell, lots of isolated sky-touching buildings, appearing on both sides of

harbour.144. Pollution (smell of sea water)145. Pollution is very bad, poor air and water quality, bad traffic fumes.146. Air pollution.147. Pollution and lack of access.148. Rubbish floating on the surface of the water.149. Traffic, difficult to access for people.150. The ugly tall buildings.151. Isolated, polluted, inaccessible.152. Not accessible for the public; poor design; inadequate attention from Gov't and the

private owners.153. Lack of open space/green/seating area.154. Poor accessibility, cannot get close, barrier with no activity.155. Pollution, lack of attractive pedestrian access.156. Lined with traffic.157. Lack of access to the harbour; lack of good and beverage outlets; too much traffic;

harbour pollution severe; sea walls create waves.158. Discontinued [shoreline] and lack of interesting sight-seeing; promenade area is

rather small e.g. TST East.159. Lack of activities, lack of easy accessibility.160. The water pollution problem is serious.161. Pollution, dredging.162. Reclamation, public cargo working area, within the harbour limits.163. Poor accessibility to the waterfront. Serious pollution without any greenery.164. Pollution; no green areas - too much concrete - no trees/grass; no harbourside

dining, eg no Boat Quay as in Singapore; no water taxis as in Sydney. Star Ferry - not clean.

165. Pollution, no decent pedestrian promenade, under utilisation of harbour front areas (like the piers) for wining and dining.

166. Pollution, lack of green facilities to attract local and international people, poor



transportation, lack of dining facilities.167. Lack of open space and pedestrian access.168. Pollution, traffic both road and water are too congested.169. Pollution, ugly architecture. All public area are mostly occupied by Filipinos that

scare off locals and visitors.170. Water pollution, so much sewage is [discharged] more or less untreated into the

harbour.171. Continuing reclamation and that gradually the harbour is becoming no longer a

working harbour. Pollution too, of course!172. Pollution and noise. Like to go to TST and enjoy the scenery of HK side but noise

is distracting. Please don't reclaim any more land in the harbour.173. Pollution, no attractive design, does not encourage spending time.174. Not people-friendly; dirty.175. Poor architectural quality, low quality open space, insufficient promenade space,

very few retail and F&B locations, buses and transport dominate the waterside, little continuity to waterfront space, especially on island side.

176. The pollution of the water in the harbour. The congestion of traffic which make the air even more polluted.

177. Pollution, traffic, lack of landscape, no shade, insufficient access, no cafes, bars or entertainment, roads too close and separating access from town, no planning or design thought.

178. The harbour is shrinking too much, it is too polluted and there is generally not enough pedestrian access or harbourside entertainment.

179. Poor water quality: " sterile" quality of those areas developed for leisure use: large areas blocked from public access by roads and inappropriate and pollutive commercial activity (e.g. public cargo working areas)

180. Pollution, no fine coffee shops or restaurants181. Pollution; severance between harbour and city in many places; inconsistent design

(TST & areas of HKI northshore are good; North Point with elevated flyover by Kwun Tong is horrendous)

182. Nearly impossible to reach the harbourfront, the lack of public venues or location where public can enjoy the view such as the path outside the Convention Centre. The disgusting view of current reclamation work and more and more tall buildings near the waterfront where most seaview has been blocked.

183. Too many ships on the narrow harbour, very crowded.184. As stated by you.185. Too congested, too much traffic, pollution, too small harbourfront.186. Pollution; less open area, especially dining area.187. The small area in HK Harbour District and pollution by garbage and cars.188. Air pollution; waste; traffic jam on weekdays; most in-town parks are occupied by

maids in Sundays189. Too much access for public and private vehicles; no grass or trees useable by

public; no seaside walkway for pedestrians in many places; no restaurants for al fresco dining by the waterside walkway.

190. Lack of access except at specific points. Pollution does not encourage relaxation. Traffic noise always close. Nowhere to just sit and watch, eat and drink.

191. Pollution, [harbour] getting smaller.192. Pollution and traffic.193. Access to harbour (physical, visual, psychological) is inhibited by environmental

barriers at present e.g. on HK side the helipad, no-go pedestrian areas and architectural barriers to pedestrian access to the water front, unclean areas and uninviting public spaces. Considerable proportion of harbour front is off limits to the



public and prime space occupied by buildings rather than people areas. It is environmentally ugly and uninviting. Cultural buildings (e.g. the Cultural Centre precinct on Kowloon side) and public spaces are unattractive both architecturally and environmentally e.g. the tiled areas on Kowloon side are hot, hard underfoot and visually unattractive.

194. Pollution195. Central Harbour should exclude all working areas. Pier architecture is obsolete.

Use of harbourside for bus depots is a waste.196. Insufficient Green area and leisure facilities (parks). Water Pollution. Continuous

Reduction of harbour size. Harbour District usually occupied by roads or highways, people cannot access to the harbourfront. Big waves due to narrowing of Harbour. Buildings are too high which seriously blocks the view of mountains and other inland landscape.

197. Pollution of air sea and land; lack of comprehensive plan for use of harbour front (pedestrian with cafes, walkways, gardens, clean sea - buildings blending in but set back and rising in height to allow light and air away from the immediate vicinity while achieving an aesthetic impact); too much limited or specialised use e.g. City Hall, Tamar site for Government, PCWAs, Exhibition Centre) and lack of easy, well signed access - Kowloon side better than Island site.

198. Ever growing taller buildings and increased landfill; highway cutting off pedestrian/ visual access; and pollution.

199. Lack of public access to the harbour to see the views; no pedestrian walkway along waterfront; pollution in harbour.

200. The harbour is currently beautiful. For me, just being able to look out across is impressive. I do not appreciate the fact the harbour front is increasing. It's perfect as is.

201. Only a small percentage of HK Islands frontage is accessible; waste paper collection sites, ferry piers and heli-pads don’t need to be completely shut off from the tourists - it's a working harbour, so that can be included into the aesthetic, and mechanism for people to watch and enjoy but as long as it isn't to the detriment of the available frontage for pedestrian access. The development of Outlying Islands Piers and area hasn't utilized the piers' roofs. Classic Dinning space. Access from Shun Tak walking west is incredibly messy, but has stunning views out of the Islands, Tsing Ma Bridge and the working harbour areas between.

202. Too much land reclamation and pollution, lack of sense of place.203. For the 6 years I have been living on Lamma Island, the entire harbour area has

been constantly under construction. Pedestrian access is secondary to vehicles, and just about anything else. We have roads and bus depots for a harbour. Pollution is appalling, especially from the ferries and other boats. There are no venues. Even the opportunity to put cafes or restaurants in the ferry piers was wasted. Have a look at the Discovery Bay pier - it has a small cafe on the top floor facing the city, while a TOILET BLOCK gets the view of the harbour. Who thinks up this madness?

204. Pollution - air pollution and sewage in harbour it smells awful, traffic, lack of promenade that runs the whole length of the harbour.

205. Pollution is Horrific. Increasingly you cannot see the TST waterfront from Central because of the pollution levels. The government should be lobbied HARD to decrease the amount of pollution that is caused by vehicular traffic. How about following the London model of charging private vehicles to come into Central between 7.30am and 7.30pm - public transport is plentiful and would be much swifter if there was less private traffic on the road. Also public and private buses must be cleaned up - the diesel pollution is unacceptable. Checks on pollution levels should be part of the annual vehicle licence check-up. Also there is pitiful lack of restaurants and bars on the waterfront. Take a lead out of Sydney's books where Darling Harbour is a delight to visit. Or even the river front in Singapore.



Finally who on earth decreed that one of the world's (potentially) most spectacular harbour should be lined with transport terminals - passing from Kennedy Town to Causeway Bay there are countless bus stations taking up valuable land that could be turned into parkland and public space. But please, don't pave those parks in tiny pink or blue tiles!

206. Pollution, lack of space.207. Water pollution, busy traffic of the harbour, too crowded which in a harbour is

supposed to be open and wide.208. Difficult to walk to the harbour at ground level, lack of eating places near the

harbour, need more landscaping and street art, more planning into the development of the area.

209. There is far too much pollution and further development will not only add to this, but it will block the existing views so that things will eventually become out of sight.

210. Sometimes the traffic is too crowded and stuck together and there is too much pollution due to transport.

211. Generally poor quality of planning/urban design, poor pedestrian access, poor street furniture, too many inappropriate/unnecessary land uses/building taking up waterfront locations. Mixed quality of architecture - some world class, some mediocre.

212. Pollution; insufficient of pedestrian links; lack of access to public transport; lack of venues; lack of soft landscape; lack of local arts and crafts and leisure spaces; lack of harbour related facilities e.g. harbour restaurants/open cafes; lack of anchor attraction and currently too commercialized oriented.

213. Too much traffic along the harbour. Not accessible by foot. What a waste!214. Pollution. There is absolutely no harbor side peaks, or shopping areas. The

waterside is rather boring and once you get over the superb city skyline, there is nothing to keep you there or make you want to return often.

215. Pollution. Nothing much to do there when you arrive. Not "green enough … too much concrete".

216. Pollution, traffic, lack of venues.217. Lack of public access, trees, shade, activities, bike paths, clean air (free of vehicle

exhaust).218. Water pollution, refuse, inaccessible with highways as urban/spaghetti next to the

shore, hardly any alternative features related to musical, cultural, entertainment or sports - a decade of urban planning exacerbated by greedy developers all to build taller buildings coerced by the TPB.

219. Lack of venues for the public and lack of trees along the shore.

Q 6. Any other comments you would like to contribute about the current state of Hong Kong Harbour District?

1. Water taxis which is quick, efficient, cheap and regular would help to make access much easier.

2. Must retain view of the hills (building height restrictions). "Impressive" buildings should be sympathetic/appropriate rather than imposing - must integrate with the people rather than isolating them. Public transport must be clean and quiet - if using fuel efficient bus trials across Europe, why not Hong Kong?

3. Don't fill it in any more, the harbour makes us unique - we can't afford to lose this.4. A coordinated/Harbour Authority approach is vital. A non- government/bureaucratic

approach is vital. A mentality with implementation programme is vital.5. Certain portion of the shorelines should have pedestrian walkways for people's

appreciation of the harbour (e.g. similar to the space at Kowloon side near the Cultural Centre).

6. Need more roads from Sheung Wan ~ Central ~ Wanchai ~ Causeway Bay.



7. Should form a Harbour Authority to formulate the master planning strategy and co-ordinate with relevant government and private sectors for on-going execution and further improvement.

8. Sydney, San Francisco, New York, Auckland, Cape Town, Rio Dijanero - Harbours can be beautiful, practical and commercially viable. Why ruin ours?

9. Must have a long-term masterplan for the whole area, do not let Government architects do anything involved with the harbour.

10. Continuous pedestrian walkway along a very long section of water front on both sides.

11. The TST area is good, but the Wanchai area is uneasy to access. The harbour has become too narrow.

12. Stop reclamation and preserve the harbor.13. Catch 22 situation; most of the developments in the district are private. Without

reclaiming land to introduce a "new" harbor front, what can the government do to change it?

14. Planning of harbourfront should be open to public consultation.15. Stop reclaiming.16. Dirty and not organised well enough for tourists or pedestrian to walk along and

admire the harbour view.17. Somewhere like Queen's Pier - move the pier, renovate the area to became more

tourist friendly. Restaurants/bars on TST shore also.18. Too many very high buildings being built too close to the waterfront are affecting

views of hinterland and creating a "narrowing' effect on the harbour itself.19. Stop all reclamation, introduce electronic road pricing to reduce traffic at

harbourside.20. The current state is sad. Gov't should look at re-engineer the old reclaimed area,

sort it out first. The harbour district is not adding value if the management and usage rationale are not back on track.

21. We should maintain our reputation as the "Pearl of the East". The tall buildings are really affecting the same.

22. Most of HK harbour district areas are used for functional purposes, like dock, storage, rubbish collection point or shipping area. The aesthetic factor is the least considered in the design of the area. Also, the concept of pubic realm is poor, most waterfront areas in HK are not for pedestrians, with poor access and transport links.

23. Greater pedestrian access to harbour with good landscaping for use of tourists and residents.

24. The harbour district is at risk from inappropriate high rise development at the waters edge.

25. Need trees, grass (that can be touched, felt and enjoyed by people; not something treated as "Hot Lava". No tacky light shows - need subtle, architectural soft lighting which brings out the beauty in the buildings and areas (trees if there are any).

26. Limit height limit to no more than 3 stories. Require more open space for any development. I strongly support any measures to create and to keep our harbour district clean of pollution, clear of tall buildings over 3 stories high and to use any measures to serve the communities, including residents and owners in the district, workers in the area, and businesses by offering more parking space for vehicles access, MTR access, gas operated public transport vehicles (which should include buses).

27. Please protect Victoria Harbour.28. So badly planned, does not encourage people to visit or stay. Visually unappealing.

Why no recreation of historical building or maritime museum?29. Look from Sydney. The councils there came up with all the planning for the Sydney

foreshores and Darling harbour, parks on the water, a maritime museum, the opera



house, restaurants etc. etc. To find what we are doing wrong, you need look no further than our own Cultural Centre on Kowloon side. It has fabulous views of the HK skyline and no windows, no restaurants. The latest plan of a cultural "hub" (for what "cultural" events?) will take so much energy to air condition that the pollution generated will only worsen our quality of life.

30. Further development along the entire harbour front particularly the northeast coast of HK Island is desirable for leisure and tourism.

31. Sea wall design is a disaster, makes the Harbour far rougher then it needs to be.32. It should be developed with harbours such as Sydney, Auckland, and Lisbon as

positive examples.33. There should be a public promenade along the ENTIRE length of the harbour to

allow access to the harbour from point in the city.34. Reducing traffic noise congestion and associated pollution would make the area far

more pleasant, especially on the HK side. Improving water quality in the harbour itself would also enhance the area, although this may be an impossible goal!

35. There are no dining facilities.36. Building more traffic lanes to/from Central is only a short term expedient. The Town

Planner, should be alternatives of traffic management, proved to be successful in many other countries.

37. Needs more greenery, dining areas etc. and if it is made into a 'park by the water', it would be nice if people were actually allowed to walk on the grass rather than just look at if from the other side of a little boundary wire!

38. Need a harbour authority that is independent and able to plan the harbour's development based on a wide stakeholders consensus. Need a living harbour for the people.

39. 1) Install sewage to handle all sewage excess problem.2) No more new commercial building.3) Create more greenery and leisure environment.4) Proper lighting to enhance the harbour.

40. Reduce high rise, they are spoiling the natural view.41. This is not rocket science, use the experience of other countries, juts take a look at

the 'The Rocks' Sydney, Australia. The area has wide pedestrian promenades, no cars, wide range of outside areas for dining and cafés, smart lighting. Alternatively, other areas have done an excellent job, EG Melbourne Australia, or the Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, Wales, UK. Both of these developments converted existing rundown industrial buildings, into tourist havens.

42. Minimal roads construction, feeders, parking, etc on the perimeter feeding pedestrian areas, and unlike HK not obscuring the view. The planners need to change their mindset, from the seaside inwards, the order should be:-Harbour-Promenades (with decent lighting for safety and crime prevention)-Cafes, restaurant, bars, etc.-Pedestrian areas-Harbour side buildings (with free section for public viewing).-Access road (feeder roads, car parking, etc.)

43. It's not the size that counts, but what you do with what you have!44. Stop land-filling it!!!45. It is shrinking due to too much reclamation. This should stop, as soon has Hong

Kong island becomes any closer to TST, the whole area will be worthless.46. It is a disaster. A long distance path with inadequate community activities . 47. Singapore - Clark Quay / Boat Quay; San Francisco - Fisherman's Wharf.48. It should be developed into what they have done in Sydney, Australia which is

beautiful and a real tourist success.49. (1) No continuous walkway like the one at TST. Review the current set-up.



(2) Review the design/set-up around the Star Ferry pier, including the carpark, the bus/taxi station. Everything shall be tidy up.

50. Agree with the new road to take traffic and pollution away from the tunnel - this will ease traffic congestion.

51. The area need to be "softened" and made more people friendly. Less buildings and more gardens. Too much emphasis on offices having all the best sites. Vary the shore front, with inlets, pools etc., instead of a long concrete/stone harbour wall with steel railings.

52. Make it beautiful and stunning - with more restaurants that have a view or outdoor dining. Ease traffic congestion with a bypass.

53. It is not "world class" (whatever that means). People are largely excluded, particularly people at leisure. Remove the major highways which ruin the frontage. HK is a small city and cannot afford the space for them, so deal with the traffic, get rid of the highways, redevelop the appalling buildings.

54. "Darling Harbour Sydney" comes to mind for a benchmark.55. Don't build a government office on Tamar, build that in Yuen Long.56. Look at Sydney. Also what Singapore and London have done the river banks.57. It has amazing potential to develop as the heart of HK and not as a highway!58. Overseas friends and business people are truly disappointed when they view the

harbour for the first time - they feel it is dirty, too modern, no history, too much traffic, no places to walk and have a relaxing drink - I agree. Hong Kong expects and needs tourists but does little for them.

59. Pedestrianising - design competition for landscaping/open areas, fountains, trees (native); Alfresco dining provision - change for private vehicular access.

60. Move all Gov't offices to Cyberport. Reclaim all the land from Tamar to the Post Office from Gov't and put to better use.

61. No attempt to promote Harbour as a serious tourist/leisure venue, like Sydney, Singapore.

62. No more reclamation of the harbour to take place. Victoria Harbour is already canal.63. It is too commercially driven and not in the interests of HK people.64. Should at least retain the present available space that the harbour now has. Lanes

should be restrictly endorsed in view of offensive attempts to pollute the harbour. Tighter monitoring; timetable should be formulated to ensure better environment of the District.

65. Walkways / Dining / Running trails.66. Government offices and PLA should move away from harbour district, relieving traffic

congestion.67. You must proceed with landfill in Central to finish the reclamation but then finish it off

with public, restaurant, bar, hotel, sports uses on the harbour front strip.68. Should aspire to London's Embankment.69. More barge terminals further north into N.T.70. Leave more space. Limit the industrial activities and traffic flow. Impose town

planning to limit the heights of buildings.71. The area from Wanchai to Causeway Bay is particularly sad. 72. Hong Kong is the harbour, so do not throw away any benefit there is. Instead,

capitalise on it.73. The Harbour District should not be a fixed boundary, should be flexible with priority

of importance given based on existing situation i.e. Central & Wanchai North first, SFKD next etc.

74. Look at Sydney best practice.75. Stop land reclamation.76. Dirty, polluted & totally lacking in facilities.



77. Hawker style outside dining?78. Appalling air and water pollution. Lack of planning and focus in land usage.79. Reclamation should be avoided at any cost. It is a huge mistake - it will cut the

harbour from the community and degrade the environment of HK's Island.80. Improving water quality is essential.81. More activities needed to bring people to the natural asset of Hong Kong.82. Drastic beautification project & reclaiming the roads are needed. And we need an

overall plan or scheme for whole Harbour District, not bare anymore.83. Build an user-friendly green area for all of us.84. More landscaping and user friendly and genuine recreational facilities.85. Improve water quality and remove pollution.86. Need to enhance character of our own, instead of just copying other locations'

features.87. Move utilities (waste collection etc) and roads away. Use more natural materials,

wood, greenery etc.88. Greater promotion of water sports and boat race.89. Can be a lot better more pedestrian friendly; quality urban design.90. More greening.91. The existing Harbour District should re-formed in line with the waterfront

development.92. Always enclosed by fence.93. Re-planning the whole development and if necessary to demolish buildings that look

ugly or not in harmony with neighbourhoods.94. Virtually no access to one of the world's beautiful harbour, except from elevated

highways by car. 95. After giving venues, we should give the Gov't the opportunity to implement them.96. As discussed in the seminar, should retry Harbour Enhancement Committee to

organise, plan, design and implement the revitalization.97. Extensive areas of green, traffic free space at ground level with waterfront access.98. Clean up pollution by completing sewage projects. Planners must be more

imaginative (such as not allowing straight shore lines).99. More sports and concerts at the harbour's front.100. Over-dominance of transport-related facilities and roads.101. More shops, restaurants, arts and cultural activities, etc that will attract local people

and tourists!102. Provide more leisure space, a green environment for residents and tourists.103. Clean the harbour (water) up. No more landfill please! Enough already! Establish

more outdoor eateries on the waterfront so people can enjoy the bistro at the yacht club is one of the best features in HK but it's [for] members only.

104. The harbour must be part of the local community as well as desired by the tourist.105. Better planning to integrate land use & transport. Pedestrian-friendly planning.106. No art work - how about an art walk.107. Govt should not build its govt headquarters at Tamar (which is prime land) because

it is a waste of tax payers' money. Govt in developed countries are tending towards decentralisation away from the CBD rather than being right in the middle of it!

108. Vancouver has a wonderful harbourside dock that is used by locals and tourists. HK has one of the most spectacular views anywhere without the facilities to enjoy them.

109. Buildings set-back and step down in height.110. For further development, need to plan before action. A master plan to balance the

view and the environmental condition. No more reclamation in Central, TST areas.



111. Encourage active boat traffic. Have a wide variety of harbourside features and activities (NOT just endless sterile pedestrian walkways). Keep cargo handling areas, ships berths, etc.

112. One of the things I fell in love within HK is the night view from TST. When the hustle bustle of HK life gets to me, I go there and sit down for a while

113. Look at ways to improve area, divert through traffic, find ways to make area more open.

114. Landuse is either driven by govt for roads, infrastructure or by private enterprise for profit. The landuse should be established from a steering group of urban designers, community, the arts, govt and private sector.

115. Tunnel the coast roads, landscape the coast, provide wide deck access from town, allow 2/3 storey low density retail/F & B development, provide undergound car parking, build piers, museums.

116. Need an SAR-wide waterfront use policy - should extend beyond the Harbour and include guidelines for all; appropriate use of all shorelines (Pok Fu Lam, Aberdeen, Saikung, Clearwater Bay, etc…

117. Look at other cities with great Harbour! Like Sydney, we can allow some tourist ferry services and more open area restaurants along the harbour side.

118. Needs integrated community, land use and transport planning in balance.119. The government should construct venues/facilities where more public can enjoy.120. A functioning harbour, but not enjoyable.121. Having a large walking area in TST.122. No reclamation! A wider pedestrian path around the harbour.123. It seems the government thinks it is better to place commercial buildings and

parking lots, and bus terminals near the water. I would rather see people places even if convenient access is slightly less. Look at the PuDong side of the river in Shanghai.

124. Access needs to be imposed to all the h/front and greened. All we have is acres of bare concrete (albeit tiled in pink in places).

125. Stop reclamation. Plenty of available sites e.g. Tolo Harbour.126. The areas on both sides of the harbour should be opened up for people access -

landscaped appropriately and cultural and commercial areas developed e.g. open air dining and coffee shops, public open spaces with trees and landscaping, areas for sitting, sheltered areas. It would be wonderful to be able to walk from Central to the Exhibition in Wanchai or to Causeway Bay along the harbourfront. The redevelopment of the Boat Quay/Clarke Quay areas in Singapore and the Southbank Precinct in Melbourne & Docklands in London are recent examples of successful conversions/redevelopment of neglected prime urban areas that have been commercially, environmentally successful and drawn people to these areas.

127. Should be used as a tourist attraction e.g. outdoor cafes or restaurants around conference centre etc. more greenery.

128. Pedestrian promenades near the business district are needed. Limited F&B for casual use needed.

129. Stop Reclamation! Improve water quality - reduce floating rubbish and water opacity etc. Land use should focus more on building open green area (the landscape should imitate nature [as much] as possible) so as to provide for people to relax.

130. Have a really long pedestrian walkway area (about 3 to 4 miles long along the edge of the harbour and skirting ferry areas - look at how Sydney and Auckland have handled that particular aspect) with cafes, museums, flowerbeds, fountains, seating, musicians area; local handicrafts all in or fronting onto this area. Develop the active historical side - Have the oceangoing junks of the 16th century, the commercial and pirate junks of the 19th and 20th centuries; Have a museum of examples of life as it was on an interactive basis.



131. Continual reclamation works and machinery creating eyesores.132. Central harbour front cannot accommodate a 6-lane road akin to that at North Point

and stay beautiful/accessible to the tourist. Reduce/subsidise the Western Harbour Crossing fee and people will use it, so the patronage at the bottleneck between Admiralty and the Central tunnel will be greatly reduced, thus freeing up Gloucester Road for through traffic and accessing Wanchai and Causeway Bay (an area that could, and should be shut off to cars too). I live in Sai Ying Pun, and work in Tai Koo, so I know what the traffic is like, and where the traffic build-up occurs - I commute through it twice a day. TST is nearly right, but it can be extended beyond Whampoa, intersecting the industrial areas around the HITEC centre and connecting to Kai Tak - a walking harbour is an interesting harbour for tourists, but only if it's safe, accessible and above all else, clean.

133. Many of the waterfront areas are designed as "public open space" for leisure, but some of them are made in such a way that people are not encouraged to use the space.

134. We need to recreate the area as a leisure/ tourist zone similar to Sydney Harbour - limited vehicles, lots of pedestrian access, dining spaces (Not more shops). The industrial usage can be confined to port areas on the western side of the harbour. The harbour should be a first class approach into Hong Kong.

135. The proposals in a recent edition of HK Magazine including open parkland and public space on the waterfront were visionary and should be given a wider hearing and taken seriously. It’s time the people of this city were given some real access to the waterfront - something more than half a dozen benches on a strip of land on the TST waterfront, the pavements of which resemble a swimming pool floor or a public toilet interior! If this is Asia's World City, let's start making it world class.

136. Education from the youth, encourage them to be assertive. Promotion [of] the idea to different group of people. Stage protests to voice out!

137. Further reclamation will set a dangerous precedent for other waterfront areas in Hong Kong and in the government not listening to the will of the people. Hopefully we can make our voices be heard on the 2nd of May!

138. Too congested and commercialized with no sense of harbour feel.139. Beautify the harbour by greening/putting waterfront plazas/pubic spaces …

carefully sited with dining/café/ restaurants of an appropriate theme (e.g. modern maritime). No shopping mall/nor podium structure.

140. I realize it is not environmentally correct to landfill the harbor, however if Hong Kong does not do something about its city planning it will cease to exit as a destination. As it stands Hong Kong only survives as a tourists' weekend shopping center, however it is nowhere near a vacation spot.

141. The harbour front should be open "common" space to as greater degree as possible. Restaurants with open areas to enjoy the view.

142. Under utilised asset - needs defined well planned strategic improvement.143. Need to improve accessibility as top priority, add in quick fixes in landscaping and

develop a strategic vision as long term rehabitation.144. Tourist attractions such as the Chinese style corridor at the Royal Palace in Beijing

could be built.

Q 8a. For what reason(s) do you feel further reclamation of land in the Harbour District should NOT be allowed?

1. The harbour is a wonderful nature resource and should be preserved, it should not be reduced any further. If reclamation is not allowed then alternative solutions will be pursued.

2. With inventive, creative, inclusive planning I feel we already have the harbour front land (too much is currently taken by infrastructure) required. A world class city rarely inhibit fill in its harbour.



3. Harbours are our natural assets.4. For land sales.5. Reclamation has to stop somewhere, whilst there is still a harbour.6. The harbour is already getting narrower. Too much reclamation of land has already

been made.7. Protecting the harbour should be a top priority. I am not yet convinced that there are

no other alternatives.8. The harbor has already gotten smaller with increasingly bigger waves, reclaiming

more will for sure make things worse.9. The harbour is very rough. Reclamation has been over done. Reclamation at

Kowloon East was not necessary. Government should find ways to compensate.10. Too much already, harbour is becoming a millrace , government should not use

Tamar for a self-aggrandising monument to its own folly.11. Harbour (the wide + deep Victoria harbour) is a natural resources, the one and only

in HK and the rest of the world. We should not deplete this natural competitive edge, both from a social + commercial perspective.

12. 1. The harbour is a very important tourist attraction. 2. A leisure environment available for HK people to dine or walking around.

13. The harbour has reached a minimal size, particularly in Central to be effective.14. The western tunnel is a "white elephant" - put that to use, with equalized pricing and

introduce electric road pricing, and there will be no immediate (within 10 years) needs for any reclamation.

15. Already too much reclamation, it is no longer a good Victoria Harbour as it was. Please stop ASAP, otherwise, we are losing our harbour.

16. We will end up having a very narrow harbour, losing its attractiveness.17. Mainly because the gov't must stop thinking of reclamation as s solution. I don’t think

the gov't can be trusted to care for and nurture the harbour. As such, I believe they should have no choice at all but to think of alternatives.

18. Don’t turn the harbour into a river!19. The harbourside becomes more populated with buildings, roads and people.

Ultimately it includes more pollutions, more traffic jams, less open venues for citizen to enjoy the natural views. In short, it becomes a concrete jungle.

20. Existing space (e.g. Tamar site) is very poorly used and can be converted into a public park, for example.

21. 1. Narrowing the channel creates vessel congestion and increase collision potential. 2. HK is getting closer to Kowloon!

22. The harbour already suffered a lot!23. Too extensive. Unnecessary. Too business orientated.24. There is no shortage of land in HK at all. Thus no need for further reclamation.25. Further reclamation risks destroying what little is left of the harbour and it's potential

as a worldclass harbour area/tourist attraction.26. There has already been excessive reclamation and serious degradation of the

harbour. We must now reverse the damage and regenerate the harbour.27. Reclamation in the harbour is a non-sustainable and ad-hoc response to

development pressures. The harbour is also one of HK's most spectacular and important natural resources.

28. It is too precious to sell for commercial development. Commercial development and roads should look for alternative solutions. There are other spaces for these but no alternative to our harbour.

29. Land is poorly used - need to redevelop, not reclaim to fix old mistakes. Need innovation in planning and traffic management.

30. Victoria Harbour is and has been the attractions of HK which is very unique , and



should not be "covered up" by reclaiming land and ruin the natural surrounding.31. For the sake of commercial convenience and higher land premium for the gov't.

There are space elsewhere.32. The size of the harbour is already very small.33. Only 3 major cities in the world have natural harbours. Why would we want to

destroy ours?34. It is not necessary! What about redeveloping much of the poor existing buildings in

and around Central, western Wanchai, North Point - all without further reclamation.35. Existing infrastructure is quite adequate.36. (1) Reduce the harbour width (from HK to Kowloon)

(2) The reclamated land is for roads which will worsen and spoil the harbour front (e.g. noise, dust, air pollution, atmosphere and the leisure feel.)

37. For all the reasons selected in item Q7.38. Affects on tidal flow and wave generation.39. There are alternatives to manage traffic and plenty of space for building in N.T.

Reclamation is only given ahead to maximise land sale revenue.40. The harbour has been reduced to the width of a river. We need to preserve what is

left.41. It is already restricted and there is plenty of existing land in areas such as Wan Chai

that could be redeveloped instead.42. There has been too much reclamation already and much of the new development is

ugly and dirty.43. A total ban. Would demand alternative approaches to land use which is long

overdue.44. Already too much reclamation.45. Better use of existing land can be made. Destroying further the harbour will diminish

the appeal of HK to tourists, and may limit the commercial businesses currently using the harbour, leading to job losses/restriction of further job opportunities.

46. 1) Reclamation of the Harbour District already overloaded.2) One of the few natural heritage of Hong Kong already badly damaged.3) Natural open spaces in overcrowded Hong Kong are rarities and should be preserved.

47. Because it is only in the commercial interests of a group rather than the enjoyment of the many.

48. Reclamation causes tremendous disruption and disturbance to the surrounding marine habitats. The natural scene of the harbour will soon be replaced by artificial structures and landscapes.

49. Why is more land needed in this location - there is no requirement for justification for Gov't offices to be in the harbour area.

50. It has already been over-done. Stop now or we shall have no harbour left.51. Transport speed should not take priority over individual use.52. Commercial gains, ie new commercial buildings.53. I don't see that there is any further need for reclamation. Any smaller and it will be

the Hong Kong stream - if pollutes - it encourages delay of essential returns.54. Any further reclamation erodes the main features of HK. Now is the time to stop.55. It is destroying the natural centre of HK. Again Sydney has activated the Harbour as

no.1 lifestyle and tourist attraction.56. The harbour is one of HK's main attractions - reducing it destroys this.57. Reclamation cannot be undone will it stop when Kowloon and Central meet!?58. Although it may be expensive to build in the hilly areas of HK, it is not impossible.

There is no need to fill in the harbour for land. If gov't policy is to keep filling the harbour in then there will not be very serious attempt to make a pleasant harbour



because it will be continuously filled in.59. Reducing the harbour to get more land is a wrong approach

Beautification must be made creatively with what is available now.60. There are always alternatives to reclamation.61. Filling up the harbour makes it very rough. It's so rough that many marine activities

such as yachting are simply not suitable.62. If it takes the same form as normal - i.e. very engineered.63. With adequate consultation, studies of strategies elsewhere in the world - such

things as underground tunnels, although higher costs, can be justified.64. Just move of the same!65. Too many roads already; too little access; enough is enough.66. Excessive67. Not for roads!68. Existing area of harbour has reached absolute limit.69. Money.70. Depends where.71. Buildings, shopping Malls.72. The Government has not best utilised then existing waterfront areas. If it can, I would

be move sympathetic to demands for more reclamation.73. It's gone far enough, plenty of land elsewhere, de-congestion of traffic is not that bad

as to justify harbour is HK's most important feature historically as well as at present.74. The harbour is a historic site and an irreplaceable asset for HK. If traffic has to be

diverted, Boston and other cities showed how to do it.75. Harbour reclamation is always the early option for the planners (and society). We

need to try harder now to come up with alternatives.76. Makes the harbour too choppy. The views from TST NOT as good as getting closer

and closer.77. There are other ways to achieve better traffic flow than just reclaiming land. Rather

than doing things the "old" way, find new ones to achieve common goals - creating a world class harbour!

78. Land should not be reclaimed for building or roads.79. The harbour is getting smaller as it is. The water is wavier and the boat traffic is

getting too much. The harbour if reclaimed more will eventually become a river.80. Solutions to all of the planning issues can be found without any further reclamation.81. We have a lot of land supply in other areas and no need to reduce our important

Harbour District.82. It's our natural asset, narrow our harbour into a river, a way where government could

increase revenue.83. It is not a harbour after all!84. The harbour is very small now. Further reclamation will make our harbour become a

tiny river. The harbour is HK's landmark. I don’t know what could we show to tourist and our next generation, if the landmark disappears.

85. I believe the reclamation causes serious pollution to sea or air. Furthermore, if the reclamation continues, the size of harbour cannot attract tourists anymore. The profits of this invisible industry diminishes.

86. The harbour is the life of Hong Kong. We have done enough irreversible damage already. Time to stop.

87. Disruption of aquatic environment, current and tides disruption.88. Reducing the size of changing the outline of the harbour through unsympathetic

reclamations has the potential to reduce the value of one of HK's most spectacular (and scarce) natural assets. Unless reclamation is ruled out as a planning and development option, there will always be plans and ideas proposed for reclamations



- at which point will the maximum reclamation point be reached? How will this maximum point be determined? and how will the 'just a little more' syndrome be avoided? It would be in HK's interests to declare a moratorium on reclamation, develop the area to make the best use of the assets of the harbour and thereby force urban planners and developers to be more creative about how to solve problems of traffic and so on.

89. It will increase pollution; marine live will become unsustainable; it will detract from the visual impact of the waterfront; it will detract from harbour as a tourist attraction; it is unnecessary - there are other alternatives. In addition, it is extremely unpopular with HK citizens.

90. The size of the harbour should not be further reduced by whatever reasons as in the past the harbour has already[been] eaten up gradually. The harbour should be maintained as a harbour, not just a river-like water body.

91. The harbour size is far too small already, the harbour view is seriously damaged. The harbour is HK's heritage and signature. Further reduction size adversely affect ecology of and around the harbour.

92. Environmental, economical reason!93. Further reclamation will only further reduce the attractions of the harbour. Besides,

land reclamation for the road constructions would further increase volume of road transport.

94. It turns the harbour into a toilet, through restriction of currents etc., and it is just not necessary. All that gets put on the new land is office towers and roads. Nothing at all for HK people. I travel along the harbour from Central to Kennedy Town every morning and it is a wasteland of concrete. That is what reclamation get used for, more roads. And everyone knows, except the Town Planning Board, that more roads equals more cars. So congestion will never be fixed by further reclamation. And for office towers, we don't need flat land for that.

95. I don't feel it is justified. The only justification given is for additional roads - we need to re-evaluate our whole transport policy and look at other options such as road pricing and methods to switch users from private transport to public transport - preferably electrified transport such as rail. The continual building of new roads is not sustainable. We need to look at the problem - increasing road traffic and deal with reducing this, rather than accommodating it and simply building more road space.

96. Too congested on the water channel; should not be reclaimed for the sake of easing traffic engineering problem. What have we got left except flyovers? Are these the contributions from our city planners and traffic engineers? It is a shame when every one in the developed world is trying to save the environment and our Government is trying to destroy the city's only natural treasure. If a government does not has the expertise to resolve the traffic engineering issue, why don't we ask for help? or learn from other western European countries how they do it.

97. There are alternatives. Focus on one single alternative which is most easily to be understood by the public. Put up a strong lobbying team (road engineers, architects, marketing & advertising professionals, politician, lawyers, celebrities and experts from the international) to let the public and the government know that the choice of reclamation is very wrong.

98. This is not a good way to get more land for development within the Harbour District. There is more land outside the district. Try to think the Victoria harbour as a park of Hong Kong, like the Central park in New York City, what would people think if the park size is reduced for building roads and other development? Another important fact is that the reclamation is irreversible. Look at the history of the coast line between Kowloon and Hong Kong, reclamations had been done for many times, and it had been reduced the size of our harbour to the limit of what we can call it “harbour”. Unless we accept that we should have Victoria River in the future, reclamation is not necessary at all.



Q8b. For what reason(s) and under what condition(s), do you feel further reclamation of land in the Harbour District should be allowed?

1. Making use of existing space rather than extending rough reclamation.2. Minimal reclamation should be allowed only to make more functional and beautify

the waterfront as it stands, where necessary.3. (1) Creating more pedestrian promenades and space.

(2) Diverting congested traffic - to complete the east to west main trunk road.4. Traffic planning, open space, leisure activities.5. To provide public open space and facilities landscaping etc.6. Further reclamation should be subject to full consultation with the public and cover

their best interests.7. Because we have not got it right yet. We have one more chance but it is not possible

without reclamation. However, reclamation should be as little as possible.8. Master plan to create and keep continuous pedestrian walkway along both sides of

waterfront, and to get a reasonable shape for waterfront, while maintaining public safety and health.

9. Building attractive landmark and at the same time NOT reducing the size of the harbour.

10. For improvement of traffic, harbor front landscape, facilities for the public enjoyment.11. These needs to be balanced. Current harbour is so blocked up by waste and poor

construction/traffic planning that some relaxation or taking away of reclamation may be needed to make harbour more livable and beautiful.

12. Only the flyovers are necessary to be built.13. To relieve the traffic congestion within the Central District. 14. Reason - to make development possible. Conditions - not over indulge - only reclaim

the minimum amount needed.15. To improve pedestrian access and provision of sports and recreational facilities.16. Only under vast public interest.17. Without the harbour, it's the permanent death of our business, tourism and lives. We

have to protect this harbour. Any reclamation of land to reduce the harbour must be banned, even a legislation is required.

18. Green areas and pedestrian should be ok.19. If reclamation of land in the harbour district is necessary, ie the only way for city

development with no alternative, it might be allowed, otherwise, it should be forbidden. Building road to ease traffic problem is insufficient to support the reclamation as the traffic congestion can be released by better traffic management.

20. Leaving aside the traffic issues, reclamation may be needed to provide space for promenades, open space, venues, restaurants, cafés, limited retail etc.

21. Public use only and not for private development.22. No reason at all.23. l'm a realist and can see some reclamation will be needed but not for roads or office

buildings. How about water side parks with beaches so when water quality is improved people can swim, go boating and fishing.

24. To create open/green areas only.25. Further reclamation should only be as a last resort but conditions where it could be

used is where it would beautify an area or provide recreational facilities appropriate to the area.

26. Only to fix the problems we have now. For example to extend a promenade/park along the entire waterfront or to fill in the 'nullah' at the old airport.

27. For facilities that everyone can enjoy - restaurants, parks, tennis courts and walkways.



28. Extremely limited reclamation to provide a walkway /green belt along the harbour, free of buildings and vendor stalls, where citizens and tourists alike can simply enjoy harbour (i.e. similar to the section at Tai Koo Shing).

29. A small amount should be allowed (if needed) so that development of a 'people's harbour' can go ahead without needing to knock down existing infrastructure.

30. More control over what is happening by the public.31. For building subsidised housing. Ridiculous.32. To save lives, avert wars, prevent plagues or to save the world. Under no other

conditions should reclamation of our precious harbour be allowed.33. I can't think of a single reason, it would never be allowed in Sydney. Victoria Harbour

is probably the best preserved and most stunning harbour in the world.34. Providing public accessibility and usage results.35. To allow the development of a similar Wharf or Bay to Sydney.36. No more reclamation beyond the current Central reclamation project. This is required

to ease traffic congestion and pollution and well being of all!37. To improve the quality of the harbour district. But must entire harbour does not get

narrow and unnavigable.38. To ease traffic congestion to make the waterfront more usable to residents and

tourists - e.g. open air restaurants.39. Creation of spaces, parks40. As long as the issues outlined before are dealt with as well, otherwise we finish with

a concreted harbour.41. To manage Q. 7h - o.42. Absolutely no - it should be time to stop reclamation once and for all.43. To create parks & spaces, not for infrastructure, buildings44. Only where absolutely necessary, and no reasonable alternative exists.45. Stop all reclamation now, return newly reclaimed land to nature, create open parks

and waterfronts for local residents and tourists to enjoy.46. Central Road By-Pass.47. New reclaimed land must be for enhancing the harbour neighborhood, not for

commercial/domestic building nor roadway.48. Current harbourfront is appallingly ugly and unfinished. The reclamation must

proceed to finish the waterfront line, but then don't build another 8 lane highway - put the road in a tunnel and finish the top side with restaurants, bars, cafés, hotels - some residential! Humanize the harbour!

49. To rationalise the "rough edges" - Kai Tak nullah!50. Only when further reclamation works can further beautify the harbour while achieving

other objectives such as traffic congestion relief. No further reclamation to sell land further real estate development.

51. For increasing leisure area, with more greens, open air dinning.52. Building a submerged road system is ok, the roof of the road can be used to develop

waterfront park, public spaces!53. To enhance the natural beauty of the waterfront.54. For enhancing the quality of life for HK's people, i.e., providing promenades, more

open space etc.55. For esplanades, pedestrian areas, cafés, public access, walking, strolling, fishing,

roller skating like at Brooklyn Heights.56. For better traffic system, but waterfront must be clean of roads or massive, ugly

development (like IFC2).57. To provide land/space to beautify the waterfront or build pedestrian promenades. But

not to build roads for motor vehicles.58. Open Space



59. Create more land for quality public open space.60. Reclaimed land should be used for creating public open space to create better

quality of life, in creating more green areas.61. Only for those conditions that can improve people's experience with the harbour.

Definitely not for vehicles.62. Coordinated development which enables people to enjoy the waterfront, enhance

tourism and leisure activities.63. The purposes are mainly for majority of people's interest either from transportation or

leisure purposes.64. To enhance the waterfront.65. No way we should further reduce the harbour any more.66. There should be a clear plan on what is the limit of reclamation to allow all HK

people to debate and agree on what to do with such "remaining allowable reclamation".

67. If it provides space for innovative/flexible enhancement ideas.68. Improve environmental quality and the attractiveness of harbour for.69. Only if it gives open space and access to people - pedestrians [are] HK people and

visitors.70. Making it interesting 71. Public needs, access72. It depends whether the reclamation contributes more or damages more to the future

of the Harbour usage.73. To further enhance [the] Harbour and the foreshore area.74. When the overall planning and development require reclamation, we may have to do

it for the implementation.75. For enhancement of the harbour for the benefit of citizen, not for private road-users,

contractors and engineers.76. Only for quality of life and vibrancy77. Depends on future development with public consensus78. No better alternative.79. Planning for space.80. When the reclamation can be shown to enhance the value of the harbour district in

terms of public enjoyment.81. Only when there are no other alternatives for an absolutely essential function that

serves the community at large.82. For public need.83. Thorough analysis on land-use, societal traffic needs.84. Leads to improvement of the harbour front area.85. Improvement to existing congested urban area.86. Minimum reclamation.87. Gov't to justify reclamation and seek public agreement.88. If necessary and without any practical alternative method.89. To improve the quality of life in HK.90. To give/produce more space for the public activities in harbourfront area.91. We should arrive at a consensus on what should be done for the harbour in the long

term and work backwards.92. In mitigating adverse environmental, social and economic impact, that's only

possible by reclamation.93. With public consensus. To meet the development need.94. Needs to enhance the harbourfront particularly to build low use landmark to shift off

the ugly buildings already existing.



95. Satisfying compelling public needs.96. With consent from majority of all stake - holders.97. Limited reclamation would be needed to rectify the previous wrongs, and for

engineering reasons.98. Water promenade, pedestrian walking, leisure area, green area.99. Better planned areas for pedestrians to entry adjoining the waters.100. For what is necessary to make HK a better place.101. E.g. Central - Wanchai by-pass the truck road network and the overall interest of

the community.102. Shall plan the whole harbour district in respect of land use, transport on land and

sea environment pollution, water quality. All issues have to be compromised to make it work, even reclamation might make harbour size reduce.

103. The recent proposed reclamation is the last one at the Victoria Harbour. In doing so, all the relevant parties should eliminate the pollution to the harbour and the surroundings during reclamation.

104. Only with full justification of traffic requirements and with public consultation.105. Minimal reclamation is allowed for better planning along waterfront, mainly for the

public interest at large, eg plan for promenade and open space, GIC, public square/gathering place for social activities, aim for people to enjoy harbour.

106. Open space, like parks; the arts; restaurants; to facilitate improved transport.107. Only to the extent land is needed for extra roads only. But these roads should be

underground and a policy on reducing traffic on the roads should be implemented in parallel.

108. Economic revenue streams have become heavily dependent upon tourism. The harbour needs to be enhanced to encourage this.

109. Waterfront promenade and open space, environmental improvement (such as Kai Tak Nullah), harbour related activities, such as open amphitheatre, water sport facilities, etc.

110. To protect the existing harbour is of prime importance. Since HK is lack of land and space, if a master plan for reclamation of land and reducing the harbour bring the best solution to the public, then the govt should raise a plan and ask the public for final decision.

111. Further reclamation should be allowed only if that can improve the current situation. The original city planning is bad, don't make it worse.

112. Sensible connectivity of transport (underground road) and beautiful lines for harbourfront promenades and accessibility for public.

113. Where reclamation can create more open space and land for sympathetic developments while incorporating required roads which are mitigated in terms of design, eg submerged.

114. The Central area is unresolved as a design: A curve linking ferry piers to convention centre would link these facilities and give opportunity for more public open space.

115. If they add to the attractiveness of the harbour - e.g. walkways, innovative buildings, parks and trees, even marinas for yachts and public landing areas.

116. Where this provides opportunity to reverse poor waterfront development; in shoreline areas that are designated for commercial/waterfront use.

117. If it adds to the quality of the harbourfront and ties in with the maritime concept (e.g.a well-designed Cruise terminal is OK; major highways which could be reduced in size/done away with through road pricing should not proceed)

118. Only when totally required and no other alternative (building road to relieve is not an option especially when other solutions are not considered ie. Traffic management). Building structures like museums, art galleries where public can enjoy the facilities.



119. If there are no other alternatives.120. Tidy up the messy, uncoordinated design of the waterfront along HK island, and

align the use and design as something like that TST harbourfront area - pedestrian path, mini-handcraft markets, photo-taking, dinning areas like Boat Quay in Singapore, the dinning & shopping complex in Sydney Harbour or the Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.

121. A small strip of harbour may be reclaimed to allow greater public access and install green areas with a harbourside promenade and restaurants, some park area for play, grassy knolls for picnics, etc.

122. To rationalize current box-type reclamation and improve access to and from facilities at the water-side.

123. Green environment extension, aesthetically beautiful development (only limited no. e.g. 1 or 2 should be allowed).

124. The Central Bypass is required. Some reclamation is needed. But much less than Government proposed. Almost no other reclamation is required.

125. Only reclamation of the Kai Tak 'Drainage" (the area next to the ex-runway) maybe acceptable. But if there's some other method to clean the area, reclamation should be avoided.

126. The reclamation should be principally on the Island side to allow for the walkway and underground, well ventilated roads and adequate underground parking. It should be sufficient for this purpose and after that should cease. On the Kowloon side, there may be a case for reclaiming in the Kai Tak area after dredging the polluted mud from the nullah's discharge to give a green lung and a sensitively designed living and leisure area.

127. Only if it forms part of a complete integrated development plan whereby limited reclamation actually leads to an overall improved harbour situation.

128. To ensure Kai Tak is properly utilised the Nullah needs addressing to ensure it runs as a water course and doesn't stagnate in the basin. Reclaiming around this area could aid this. Central could be added to, but restricted to; in front of Central Post Office/Star Ferry to merge better into the Outlying Island Piers across the existing Star Ferry, to create a park frontage with pedestrian links into IFC and the HSBC green corridor. Wanchai to Causeway Bay could be added to, around the basin west of the yacht club, but only if it adds to the working environment, and enable visitors to spectate.

129. Should be allowed to facilitate the building of the proposed underwater by-pass (if more land is absolutely necessary) of Central and Wanchai. But this should not be done in isolation, traffic calming measures must also be taken - it is not good enough to simply build more roads and expect the transport problem to go away. More traffic also means more pollution. If land is reclaimed, it must be used as green space - we need more trees in Central. Reclamation should not be done to provide land for further commercial development - areas such as Kennedy Town and Wanchai should be redeveloped. Concentrating all the commercial activity in Central simply exacerbates the transport problem.

130. Only if HK finance will collapse without reclamation, in which [case] it shouldn't be affecting any aspect of the environmental health.

131. No more allowed near the city centre but other parts of the harbour to allow pedestrian access or necessary for underground public transport.

132. Since the fight against the big developers can never be won, compromises need to be reached and restricted needs be made so that everybody, including the general public and financial stakeholders, can equally be happy about what's being done with the harbour.

133. For pedestrian access/promenade along the harbour. Then along the reclaimed area, public spaces with dining/commercial activities are placed.

134. I think the bay is too small as it is, but the city should reclaim any public land areas and develop them into some interesting places and buildings. I think some of the



buildings near the water should be torn down and development into more public spaces and perhaps a nice promenade for shopping, social activities (roller blading, walking, street performers, parks, etc...) It is difficult to renovate and in some instances reclamation is necessary to develop the city, but Hong Kong has already done so much eco damage to its environment, there must be a limit to this work.

135. To better utilise the harbour as a community venue i.e. where existing access is limited by roads or buildings etc.

136. Improve, public, open space - quality and quantity pedestrian / cycle / roller blade. Amenities, restaurants, kiosks, etc. will be needed - this may need some land.

137. To enhance and rehabilitate our existing waterfront taking the points of the above.

Q 11. What should be the terms of reference of this body? At what level of government should this body report to?

1. To ensure the harbour is a vibrant, successful and sustainable entity.2. TOR as in above. Should report to the highest level.3. Town planning Board.4. C.E.5. Similar to URA and someways, i.e. Ordinance: relative autonomy/powers vested in

it.6. Making use of the harbour to enhance the overall image of HK as a world metropolis.

High level - at least Financial /Chief Secretary level.7. Multi-sector (public/private) development plan.8. This body or authority should report to Chief Secretary.9. Report to the CEO but should be an advisory body only, not possible to be in control

of all aspects.10. This survey suffers from some of the same attributes that it appears to criticize in

government's handling of the harbour. It is not a neutral survey, but heavily biased towards a particular approach. I am all for improving the harbour, but to be credible, the survey should be neutral. You will get a lot of people saying, yes, make all these changes to the process, and spend more money, but it is quite superficial. Loaded surveys are not indicative of what people really want or what they would actually do (or pay) in the issues very few of the people who say they would pay more in theory are willing to pay more for any specific proposal, if at all.

11. Duplication of government function. I think some sort of advisory body as appointed by the Chief Executive rather than statutory body should be set up. Members should be nominated by the current interest groups.

12. The current planning access does not exist or does not work. There is no early and open consultation that allows real public input.

13. Whoever will keep the process moving without too much red tape.14. Do the least damage. Report to CS.15. Project manage of any projects related to the harbour. Pro-general public's view.

Independent commission reporting to Chief Exe. (that's not Mr. Tung).16. Similar to Sydney. Report to FS.17. The body should take due heed of the interests of District Councils. Report to C.S.18. Chief Executive - it is our main asset - lose it and HK will lose.19. Should require a more democratic process. Use District Council committees, a

Harbour District Council.20. Chief Executive.21. The areas raised in question 9. Highest level.22. As high as it takes to ensure that the communities wishes are acted upon and not

just brushed aside.23. A special task force in Government with executive power.



24. The body should report to the community (district boards around the water front)25. Chief Executive.26. Reporting should be to LEGCO, at highest possible level.27. Legco28. Direct to Governor.29. Should report to CE in Council. Should have O/A planning Central with aim for

Harbour to be world class.30. I don’t believe a separate body should be set up but rather a taskforce or closer

communication and co-ordination between departments.31. Report to the public. Directly under Chief Secretary.32. Legco/Home Affairs Bureau/Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau.33. Research alternatives and propose master plan to Chief Executive; must liaise with

all Gov't departments.34. Protect and manage what's left of the harbour and surrounding areas.35. High enough to be dealing with decision makers rather than those who don't have

final say.36. Report to Chief Secretary. TOR - long term sustainable harbour development for the

benefit of current and future generations.37. Broad terms of ref., with wide cross bureau integration and planning. 38. The body should aim to develop and maintain the harbour at good conditions

(balancing interests of all parties). Report to the Chief Secretary.39. Do whatever it takes to avoid any more reclamation.40. Top level, due to the importance and significance of this site.41. Highest level. Statutory body with independent existence - similar to Housing

Authority, HA, universities.42. To the Chief Executive.43. LEGCO44. Maybe report directly to Financial Secretary.45. To the public.46. Ensure harbour is properly developed for whole HK community. Same level as Dept

of Planning.47. I feel it should be independent of the Government.48. Strategy, promotion, planning.49. Unclear at this time.50. LEGCO51. LEGCO52. Top level - it should have the quality of the Harbour area as top priority and not just

financial or traffic concerns.53. Chief Secretary.54. Chief Secretary.55. Doubtful if a creditable level of government exists to take on this responsibility.56. It should put the health of the harbour as the priority and put forward to the prospect

of its well-being. It should report to the EPD and various planning units of the Gov't.57. Should be a working committee under LEGCO.58. Not to TCW.59. The Chief Planner and report directly to the Chief Executive.60. Commissioner level.61. Voting body like Mayor of London.62. Terms of reference should show a balanced view of the interests involved. Report to

Chief Executive.



63. CE since this is of critical importance to HK, and also CPKUD.64. Chief executive report all aspects of planning/change to be observed. No steerage

from businessman/no short decisions.65. This body should report to the Legco.66. Report to the Secretary for Planning Housing & Lands Bureau.67. Should have same status as other development authorities but independent.68. Similar to URA and CS.69. To monitor, consider and examine all proposals related to the harbour district. The

body should report to Secretary level.70. 1) Use Sydney as a model with appropriate adjustments.

2) The highest level.71. The Body should consult with Government and other Bodies but to have some

autonomy.72. Full ownership of the area under its control. As a public trust to generate revenue to

the gov't/public.73. Highest level so decisions can be made.74. Chief executive or CE - should have ultimate decision making authority.75. Chief Planner / Urban Designer.76. Top!77. CE in Council.78. To manage all sorts of things related to harbour development.79. Report to CE; TOR to include world class design for use by all social classes.80. High level.81. Chief Executive.82. The TOR should be determined after wide public consultation. Report to C.E..83. He should be empowered to take charge of the planning.84. 2 years of Chief Executive.85. Report to SHPL or equivalent.86. Should develop that vision and monitor progress towards that vision. Report to the

Chief Executive who needs to respond in good time.87. Report back to the Chief Executive terms of reference as an authority of the specific

task to make the harbour work.88. C.E.89. The Highest Level - C.E.90. Supreme Authority for decision making process.91. West Kowloon/SEKD, Authority should be allowed to promote reclamation if it will

serve improvement purposes.92. Town Planning Board.93. Policy Secretary for [Housing] Lands and Planning.94. To better coordinate the land use, and to consider the stakeholders' opinion.95. Top level govt but please be international - local at other world class cities.96. To minimise reclamation, enhance open areas, "greening" of HK. Report to Chief

Executive.97. It should have a similar role to the Urban Renewal Authority, if not a part of that.98. Should report to the highest level of the govt, like Chief Secretary.99. Highest level (Chief Secretary) with authority to utilize all government departments

and work at secretariat level.100. Report to Chief Executive. Create live able environments that reduce overall

impact.101. Directly to the Secretary level.



102. Govt at the highest level should have responsibility to deliver a world-class harbour, but the vision should come from properly qualified and experienced individuals who care about the environment.

103. Must listen to views from the community, voice them out to govt. Report to Legco.104. Secretary to the harbour reports to the Chief Executive.105. Consider the harbour as a whole as a critical part of Hong Kong's future and world

city status should report to top level.106. Report directly to Chief Executive.107. To Mr. Y.K Tsang.108. An accountable, elected, representative LegCo.109. Directly to the Chief.110. Report to the Chief Secretary111. The preservation of the current boundaries of the water-side except where amenity

and access provision requires minor alternation to the current state. Such a body must have more "teeth" and status than Town Planning Board.

112. Prepare long term plans which reflect HK as a Financial, Tourist and Retail Hub, with the Harbour as its key ingredient. Work to remove all individual uses.

113. The authority should be a statutory body empowered by suitable legislation with direct elected members, Government officials, local and other concern groups

114. Report to CE, and the public.115. Every level. It's such a fundamental planning exercise I cannot see it being swung

without all involved.116. It should report directly to special committee set up within LegCo.117. Why would it matter, private sector will always win in HK.118. They should report to a "cabinet member" or equivalent, e.g. the minister of

environment.119. Department Head.120. The legislative and executive levels of government.121. Maybe something like the Airport Authority?122. Report to the Legislative Council directly for consultation, exempted from the Town

Planning Board.123. But sufficient decision making authority.124. Top level of Gov't.

Q13 What new approaches do you think should be adopted for Hong Kong's planning process for the Harbour and its surrounding districts?

1. As mentioned above.2. Move (clear) economic appraisal. Revitalisation of the harbour in terms of tourism

may bring more $$ than building offices, perhaps taxes don’t need to increase. Show us the options.

3. Have frequent visitor to HK - tourists, business travellers. 4. A new authority/new set of objectives/not driven by Gov't Depts with overiding voice

on technical issues/ integrated approach where Gov't Dept conflict is resolved. Funding - private & public cooperation; implementation not bogged down with Gov't.

5. Use creativity, consult more world renowned city planners. (e.g. the Kai Tak Airport land could be much better planned). We need some creative thinking there to help HK's future role and economy.

6. Master plan - inter/multi sector planning.7. Proactive and vibrant approach with comprehensive planning should be adopted.8. Look at other cities with good harbour projects, copy/use their ideas.



9. Need to shift priority from vehicles to pedestrians, and from private to public transportation.

10. We need to develop a vision for the harbour and move towards that goal.11. Quality of life and convenience on a daily basis should be balanced and reconciled.12. Get rid of the attitude that HK harbour is the best and instead look to other, better

harbours.13. Buffer between waterfront and any commercial/residential development.14. Prohibit reclamation from Kennedy Town to Green Island or route 7 or any further

handouts to KS Li and family.15. Full consultation with all parties in the community to really ascertain what we need.

Not planning for projects for the sake of doing it.16. A balance thinking between the "look and feel" of the harbour and commercial

consideration.17. Integrated and consistent approach to outline the master development plan for the

area should be adopted and implemented at different stages.18. You need a master plan for the Tamar and Kai Tak Airport but not necessarily for

already developed areas where firm policy guidelines could be applied.19. Open consultation with transparency in studies of plans conducted.20. Get input from communities within the Harbour District.21. Put people and the environment first, not transport and buildings and profits.22. Clean the harbour so that it can be re-integrated into our lives for our annual charity

swim, for dragon boating, for sailing, rowing and others.23. A special policy to give green light to tourism-related projects along the harbour front

to be centrally vetted by the task force.24. The planning should not be influenced by developers alone, but always be consulted

with the Hong Kong Citizens in general.25. Put the environment first!26. Reduce levels of bureaucracy, and the ability of civil servants to hide behind

processes.27. Open to public.28. Interaction of public with Harbour is key.29. Community consultation, tourist associations and tourists.30. Come up with a vision that balances aesthetic and commercial needs where the

harbour district will be widely open to the public and tourists to enjoy.31. Community involvement - give a feeling of ownership to the H.K. population.32. Integrated and long-term approach that emphasis quality of life and environmental

protection.33. Identify priorities - 1) Quality of life vs more commercial development. 2) Traffic -

restructuring of tunnel fees and road pricing (as in London).34. The major driver should be quality of life and the environment, not more roads,

buildings and cost.35. Consensus based, community/multi-stakeholder engagement to plan and monitor

harbour development, facilitated by a Harbour Authority.36. The project should consist of someone from government and same one from Friends

of the Harbour.37. The problem is focus on just the harbour. We favour the complete shoreline strategy.38. A harbour Authority, where no amount of pressure from government would allow

roads to be built in place of facilities for people. Where the primary aims would be:-to protect the harbour-support harbour businesses-schedule regular maintenance-gradually open the harbour foreshore corridor for people and business.



39. Based around Hong Kong's 5 year plan.40. Should have townhall meetings to collect opinions and exchange ideas - more

communication.41. Land reclamation is the easy way out…don't use it.42. Hong Kong knows nothing about environmental preservation - go and get some

outside expertise.43. Referendum should be set on harbour reclamation.44. Balanced between transportation/commercial development with overiding public

accessibility to a quality environment.45. More consultation with community and private sector.46. Other than planning on drawings or model, better have a small section or area for

mock-up which is open to comment before full scale work. Paris river front, a full scale model has been set-up for a long period for public comment, we can follow this process.)

47. Changing the straight sea wall approach and make the waterfront more varied and interesting.

48. Make radical decisions - demolish, redevelop, sustain change habits, pedestrians and public transport rules!

49. Involve entrepreneurs (restaurant owners) and cultural bodies to make the harbour-front people friendly and cost efficient.

50. Innovative ideas such as underground roads rather than unoriginal land reclamation projects.

51. Make the whole harbour area more public , more attractive, more enjoyable and more fun- return the harbour to the people.

52. More pedestrian access.53. An integrated and not piece-meal approach is definitely required and with more

emphasis on being environmentally and pedestrian friendly.54. An effective environmental impact assessment and co-operation with overseas

environmental policies regarding harbour development, e.g. Switzerland and Australia.

55. Run harbour neighbourhood planning competition, adopt ideas, put together new law and order to Lands Dept., Transport, Environmental Dept.

56. Adopt ideas of No. 10 and No. 12.57. Quality of life planning should take the lead in future development work. HK harbour

should not only be enjoyed from the Peak. It must be enjoyable from every point along the coast-lines.

58. Transparent, participatory, comprehensive, partnership bottom up - top down - (planning/implementation).

59. Look at best practice in Sydney.60. Planning should be prioritised around pedestrian / public activities, not roads!61. Planning with public consultation. Keep away from stealing space (e.g. heli pad in

Causeway Bay) which becomes closed to public.62. Involving all section of the community through Government, private sector, local

communities.63. More information should be provided for the public to understand more about the

existing proposed plans, otherwise people can only show their view on anti-reclamation without in-depth thinking.

64. More opportunity for community input.65. Harbour district planning process should be led by community members because it

is ultimately for community people.66. Involve public at the very beginning when forming plans rather then having

consultation at very last minute



67. Make sure the Hung Hom Bay [is well planned] ~ Old Kai Tak Airport to form man-made like district and create all required cultures and leisure establishments.

68. Genuine public consultation and willingness to listen and make changes.69. A better type of advisory body - current representation is too narrow.70. Proper consultation process and totally transparency in plans and parties involved

before being gazetting.71. Planning-led development process.72. Open, inclusive, transportation process.73. Improvement of stakeholder [participation] at the start and for ideas.74. The present system functions well, only need more critical analysis and consultation

of transport planning, before [incorporation] into town plan.75. Continuous public involvement.76. Take view of people's needs not just the developers.77. Engage multiple stakeholders of areas adjacent to [harbour].78. Integrate transport planning into town planning.79. Get transport department under control.80. Stronger, much stronger urban design for public security and agreement.81. Widespread public consultation.82. Minimise the reclamation of the harbour district.83. All parts of HK, not just the harbour, need a more integrated approach to link

planning with funding and implementation.84. It must be part of a plan for the whole of Hong Kong which in turn is part of the

National Plan.85. Have a schedule that's open to public at regular intervals for progress reporting.86. More public participation.87. Community participation.88. Public participation.89. Pursuing excellent designs.90. Community ideas and the Gov't firm decision!91. Construct roads underground.92. Sustainable development.93. People-oriented approach.94. International best practice.95. Look to other countries to see how they have developed their harbour fronts, eg

Sydney, London, Singapore, San Francisco.96. Consultation with the community and with the tourism authority.97. Masterplan proposal by community and private sector and govt, then get the public

to vote for it.98. "Urban renewal" should not necessarily entail demolition of old buildings and building

more new skyscrapers, but conservation / preservation of buildings, streets and trees should be considered.

99. Early public involvement using a conflict [resolution] process for community prioritization alongside government.

100. Public and international consultation. Find ways to reduce environmental impact but increase attractiveness of the harbour.

101. Establishment of an urban design/landuse framework specifically for the harbour.102. A steering group that has the vision to approach the challenge in a holistic way, and

also the authority to make it happen.103. Adopt electronic road pricing, make all development subject to public planning

review.104. Maybe the Harbour shouldn't have its own ' District Board' and accompanying



status.105. Any planning proposals should "pre-qualify" against clear and tough environmental

and quality of life criteria before submission; external contractors should receive clear environmental guidelines as pre-requirements for qualification to submit proposals. Requirements would vary depending on different designations of shoreline.

106. Costing of lost value of reclaimed harbour. Integrated environment, land use and transport planning. Designing transport policies and schemes to support other considerations.

107. Approval from the new Harbour Authority108. More communication between government and citizens. [Chief Executive] should

listen to public not just play to commercial side.109. Think the Harbour should be protected as one of those old, historical buildings in

HK; we shouldn't break it but maintain and improve it - can we use similar planning / management process to protect the harbour?

110. We need a common shared vision for what we except the Harbour to be in 10 and 20 years time. The new body can then have the mission of achieving that. Individual projects and development can still take place within such a framework.

111. I'm not sure about 'new' approaches but the key principles of any major urban planning exercise remain the same: adopting a very long-term perspective, human, environmental and economic implications, comprehensive and genuine public consultation, use of processes to ensure timely decision making (rather than capture of the agenda by interest groups and endless studies and reports), formulation of an implementation plan and accountability for end results.

112. Creation of a specialist Town Planning Board for the Harbour, with open meetings.113. The Master Harbour Plan should be developed through wide range of extensive

public consultation, and open design competition on international scale.114. A designated team of planners, transport engineers and a public advisory group

should be responsible for developing master plans and amendments.115. Involve tourism bodies for additional clout; get a high profile sponsor to increase

public awareness and encourage public involvement; try to get some support from China so the government will have to listen.

116. More interaction between bodies concerned - Gov't, public and commercial - all absolutely necessary - anyone left out and it goes to pot.

117. Long term strategic and sustainable planning should be developed and economic development should not be the prime concern.

118. Look overseas for some inspiration. I want to [have a] nice promenade with seats that is not owned by a private company. Try to sit down somewhere like Pacific Place and a security guard moves you on. Some cafes would be good as well. And is it possible to build something in HK without using bathroom ties on all available surfaces?

119. We need to look at the harbour as a whole and develop a blueprint for this rather than dealing with individual parts on an ad-hoc basis. Integrated planning and more involvement of the community at the initial planning stages will result in a more acceptable situation for all parties concerned. It is an exercise in balancing interests and the community's voice, as well as that of the government and the developers, should be heard and listened to.

120. More publicity. Include plans and consultation documents in the papers - both English and Chinese.

121. Give tight restrictions to new comers to Hong Kong. Encourage people to use public transport.

122. Much more public consultation should definitely be a part of the planning process.123. First of all the government should have very clear planning objectives and policies;

planning objectives shall be established through public consultation first before



legislated. And the implementation should be reviewed and executed by the Harbour Authority.

124. Global competition and public consultation for prime districts such as the Harbour, West Kowloon, the Peak etc in future. Projects which would have an impact/cut down on the natural reserve must have thorough studies carried by separate consultant and prominent environmental groups.

125. Copy Sydney Harbour.126. Community input and consensus, however not to the point of "paralysis" where

nothing gets done.127. Holistic, visionary including long term visions and principle --> guiding short to

medium action plans.128. Have business community to provide their ideas, businesses like Star Bucks would

not only come up with a more cost efficient idea, they could also provide the required finance.

Q 14. Do you have any personal suggestions for short-term or intermediate measures that should be considered to improve the HD while any major construction is in progress?

1. Small water taxis shopping in many places.2. Cleaner/quieter construction methods (eg prefabrication).3. Don't disrupt tourist district flows - eg. the noon day gun, promenades etc.4. Landscape treatment; relaxation of licensing etc., rules so that the harbour can

become a lively people place - alfresco/street performance/ street art; pedestrianisation and traffic calming of areas.

5. Stop the building of the "Cultural Complex" at West Kowloon reclamation. Too massive a structure (continuous) under one canopy. Should be individual low-rise "featured" Building with lots of landscape open space in between.

6. Time is of the essence. Carry out traffic release plans ASAP.7. Ensure not to create environmental destruction to the harbour as major construction

in progress.8. Please note - traffic in Hong Kong is light. It compared well to other cities - why the

emphasis on new roads?9. Do not let Government build a Government HQ at Admiralty site.10. Maintain pedestrian access and ability to walk from Central to Causeway Bay. Put

up directional signs in between for pedestrians.11. Limit bus routes and remove unnecessary bus-stops (make them further apart).

Enforce traffic-rules better (eg, loading of trucks all over Central).12. Change land-use on existing facilities to provide public access to waterfront, plant

trees.13. Inconvenience to the public should be minimized.14. Road tolls to ease traffic15. Allow short-term land leaser for recreational / entertainment purpose on all areas not

being used.16. Stop reclamation! Common sense really - Do we really need to reclaim so much?17. Enhance the physical environmental quality of the harbour district, e.g. landscaping,

open space, pedestrian facilities.18. Reduce traffic flow by limiting number of bus routes and buses (empty) using the

Harbour front road.19. Please stop reclaiming in Victoria Harbour.20. Minimise dredging, treat sewage completely, control noise and air pollution from

building sites.21. Educate the people by making use of what we have. Set up a temporary park with al



fresco dining at Tamar. Employ more people to clean the harbour. Harbourfest may not have worked - it was too much with too little planning and also horribly expensive if you did support it (as I did) by going to several of the acts. However, the outdoor venue, on the harbour, was absolutely fabulous! Support an annual 'Opera on the harbour', Ballet, Symphony, Rock, Shakespeare all on our beautiful, now clean, now once more fragrant harbour. To make life perfect, I'd love to roll out my rug and picnic there.

22. Not at the moment.23. Convert Tamar site into park with waterfront access. Remove the road in front which

is rarely used.24. Stop reclamation immediately.25. Suspend the harbour reclamation project in Central and reinvestigate.26. Sea walls that absorb waves better would be a start.27. Reduce congestion through car-sharing schemes to reduce tolls for 2 or more

people travelling together.28. Stop the current construction! What is the rush?29. Creation of more pedestrian areas, e.g. block roads on weekends and public

holidays.30. Add trees for shade, benches, tables for people to play cards, chess, etc. A walkway

from one end to another.31. We should introduce traffic management measures as in other world capitals.

Central business district access only for public transport during working hours or the like.

32. Review all development , re-plan, re-develop and conduct future planning based on the TOR mentioned above.

33. Stop the major construction - it's depressing seeing this being done, seeing our beloved harbour being ruined.

34. It would be simple to develop a multi-phase plan, gradually opening and widening the open space for activities. Tackle the work in slices - leave people space.

35. Allow/ help tourists and population interact with the harbour. We can’t use it or take full advantage of it.

36. Introduce measures to keep pollution level low in the harbour district.37. There is plenty of space in-land, use it even if it costs more.38. All major construction should be stopped. It is bad for Hong Kong, especially if one

day there is no harbour left and the whole area is worthless.39. Consider adjusting cross harbour tunnel tools to adjust usage patterns and electronic

road pricing.40. Stop all existing reclamation. Existing infrastructure is adequate.41. Bury the roads.42. Better stop major construction along the harbour front.43. More landscaping - trees and trees!44. Grass over the West Kowloon reclamation or an open park land.45. Clean the air pollution and noise pollution.46. Stop all reclamation until this is sorted out.47. Sponsor ferry companies to build attractive piers.48. More access for pedestrians on HK side.49. Open closed doors - open up as many areas as can be opened to the public. There

are many locked / closed open areas fronting the harbour, MTR is one landowner who could help here ( good PR opportunity)

50. Cultural/F&B events outside City Hall. 51. Move the PLA out of Central.52. No more major constructions please! Preserve and enhance what is already there.



53. Afforestation is a green approach to reconcile the on-going infrastructure development.

54. Implement smartcard toll charge to de-motivate driver going to the district.55. Put Connaught Road and new transport road links in tunnels (example is Sydney

Eastern Distributor).56. 1) Use Kai Tak land wisely for urban needs.

2) Build tunnels, not coastal highways to ease traffic.57. Clean the water.58. I would like to see many cycle lanes to encourage alternative forms of transport.59. Provide facilities in segments for the HK people to enjoy the Harbour - progressively.60. Look at best practice in Sydney.61. Short-term stop filling it in. Prepare a comprehensive pedestrian/public activity at

plan.62. Clean up the typhoon shelters, encourage outside dining on what space there is

available, stop the sewage/cooking fat outflows and fine ships who are caught dumping rubbish into the harbour.

63. Consult and scrap P2.64. Heights of buildings should be controlled to preserve the skyline.65. Community education.66. Temporarily suspend project before point of no return for 1/2 ~ 1 year and [invite]

public to discuss and make consensus.67. Lease land to private investors to improve waterfront area for commercial use.68. Too vague a question.69. Put current planning on Central/Wanchai, and Kowloon on hold until proper

approach can be validated.70. Consultation.71. Invite people to workout temporary screening and improvement scheme on affected

area.72. A lot that has been suggested already.73. Need time!74. Some quick wins to enhance selected spots around the Harbour.75. Stop approving the development plans until a clear strategy is made.76. Remove [facilities] unneeded to waterfront.77. Restaurants in Ocean Terminal/Post Office/Ferry Pier Roofs.78. Put new roads under the water.79. Less [need for] agreement, go ahead with CRIII and WDII.80. Start ASAP, for small area.81. Monitor and minimise the environmental impact during construction.82. All Government owned [facilities] with waterfrontage should be landscaped and the

public be allowed access to the newly created 'Parks".83. Short term measures to beautify the harbourfront.84. Clean up the harbour.85. Provide competitions for professionals, architects, planners etc as well as school

children for ideas and brainstorming.86. Limitation of super high rise buildings along the waterfront, say have step down for

buildings near the harbour.87. More access to waterfront.88. Set an area (even small) for improvement / excellent design for public to enter

harbourfront.89. Open up the Central reclamation area for access - allow good/beverage outlets by

ferry piers.



90. Short term - pedestrian lively area! More activities will happen then91. To restrict the area of reclamation and have stringent supervision on the waste

disposal during construction.92. Scrap the civic centre idea, utilise the piers more effectively, get rid of the bus

terminus in front of IFC II - what an eyesore and waste of prime space!93. Severe penalties for dumping into the water including loss of licence and

imprisonment.94. Step up the planning and design control on current projects. Change in

management of existing waterfront areas.95. STOP the reclamation of land NOW! Then to propose an alternative to this

construction.96. Begin converting Central/Causeway Bay into park land. Move helipad from CB to in

between roads at ferry terminal & IFC 1. Convert CB Pier to public access, restaurants, etc.

97. Reduce impact, find ways of engaging the community.98. Interim harbour planning committee to be established.99. Rip-up the promenade on TST and start again with new F&B, landscape and event

spaces to humanise the Cultural Centre and give a living edge to this section of the waterfront. Try to relocate bus interchanges from waterfront.

100. Stop all construction adjacent to harbour until a full plan is agreed with public consultation.

101. Yes, open more harbourside venues, restaurants and gathering places (e.g. City Hall, Wanchai, old cargo basin etc) to show people how great it is and get them more involved.

102. Clean the water more frequently.103. Phase construction (as roadworks along a road are) to avoid the loss of too much

harbourfront at any one time.104. Stop the construction now. No tourists will come to HK in ten years' time.105. There are many vacant sites around the area, e.g. abandoned cargo working areas

which can be turned into temporary viewing and amenity sites. This would gives tourists and residents [the] ability to experience the Harbour whilst disruptive Works take place.

106. Stop all reclamation projects. Impose heavy fines for polluters. Employ more inspectors for latter.

107. Resolve the reclamation issue promptly by publishing a genuinely minimal reclamation plan with underground/tunnel roads.

108. The incompatible uses, such as the cargo working area of KCRC terminal in Hung Hom, should be removed immediately.

109. Keep public and tourists abreast of what the construction is for, what will be achieved by it and the likely timescales.

110. More harbour patrols to clean up flotsam and jetsam. Heavy fines, and enforcement of, to commercial and individual waste being discarded, be it pre-meditated or not.

111. Better signage and direction boards should be placed within the area to let the users know what's happening in the Harbour District.

112. Yes, make construction companies contracted to government do something just once. I see a single piece of road ripped up, fixed, and then immediately ripped up again. It is just a way of providing jobs that is inefficient. Prime example is the second walkway from Exchange Square to World Wide House.

113. Temporary greening. Increased pedestrianism. Reduction in Western Harbour tunnel costs to shift traffic volume away from the central harbour crossing.

114. Small works, once at a time. Then only a restricted area will be affected and intermediate measures would be unnecessary because there would be plenty of other space available.



115. More trees and greenery should be planted!116. A buffer would be good.117. To open up discussions with the public groups, clear plans (no disguise) of any

construction/infrastructure which were hidden from previous consultation etc.118. Do a public competition with community participation in decision-making119. Plant more trees.


Documents

Outline for Paper 4 – Principles Paper doc/new_papers/paper… · Web viewPollution, elevated highways, lack of access, lack of venue. Too much traffic infrastructure. No vibrancy,