Sustainable Living Hong Kong

The gentleman was right and I was wrong.

Hearing that I’d just alerted the police to a fake monk defrauding tourists near the Peak Tram, he sniffed at the inconsequential act. Why did I begrudge the fake monk his little scam, when one on a much larger scale is perpetrated on tourists every day?

Look at all the fake attractions. Sun Yat Sen had nothing to do with Sun Yat Sen Museum; it was originally the residence of a Eurasian family, and the whole “Sun Yat Sen trail” leading up to the museum has none of the original places where Dr Sun had lived, learnt or conferred with fellow revolutionaries. But of course, tourists can follow the spanking new retro-looking railings and plaques all the way up the hill.

Look at the old Marine Police headquarters in Tsim Sha Tsui. Hey, the heritage structure has been ‘revitalised’! Signal Hill couldn’t signal its distress as the Cheung Kong bulldozers levelled it to make way for its till-ringing shoppers’ paradise, and now nothing but a handful of banyans the developer was forced to keep remained, looking lonesome and grasping for breath.

Or how ’bout Murray House, once taking pride of place in Central with the waters of Victoria Harbour lapping at its base. The stones that made up the original facade were taken to Stanley for such a ‘restoration’ that even the ghosts of those tortured inside by the Japanese during the war must be scared to go on haunting it.

The fake monk promises nirvana; the government promises a visitors’ paradise. In both cases, the tourists just go home with lungs full of foul air.

The April 2010 issue of  architecture and design magazine Perspective Monthly contains a transcript of its annual Green Roundtable, which brought together five local professionals to discuss Hong Kong’s progress towards becoming a sustainable city.  There are different views on the roles of the government, the private sector, and consumers in creating the movement towards a sustainable community.  This is surely an important debate, but one that will be in vain unless we can agree on what the goal is.

The roundtable pointed out that one of the glaring absences in Hong Kong is the lack of a master, integrated plan for a sustainable city.  For a city of this size and wealth, Hong Kong’s lack of a strategic vision in sustainability may be exceptional. Not only do we lose the opportunity to openly discuss what we want as a community going forward – thereby clearing space for bureaucrats to create their own visions together with their various friends and interest groups—but we also lose the chance to question whether the current institutions are sufficient to get us there. Singapore, KL, Seoul and most of the major metropolises in China have it — where does that leave Hong Kong?

More about the magazine and a preview of the current issue is available here

From time to time, authors of a blog or any occasional commentator may ask or be asked: what gives you the right to criticism? One response (or rationalization) is that good criticism is actually a contribution to the development of the idea, or artwork, or subject.

Following the end of the HK Shenzhen Biennale and in the run up to Artwalk and the MAN Literary Festival, questions about the role of criticism in the development of arts and audiences are rightly also in the air. A panel discussion last night, co-organized by Muse Magazine and HKU’s Department of Journalism and Media Studies, shed some light on the issues. (more about the panel here)

On the question of “who can be a critic,” Christian Caryl (currently at HKU) suggested that critics must have two prerequisites: knowledge and passion. Common sense, we might think —no one appreciates a purported critic who bears only opinion or only facts. Unwritten is the third prerequisite of criticism:  sincerity. Any critic who comes at a topic with “ulterior motives” may be vilified even more than one who is ignorant.

The proposition becomes more relevant when one realises how close arts criticism is to social (or political) criticism in Hong Kong. This stems at least partly from the fact that the government, for all its “free market” rhetoric , is highly involved as benefactor, regulator and participant in any number of markets which influence the development of arts, culture and society.  Recent discussions about preserving heritage, reclamation and the Harbourfront, redevelopment of old buildings, and the funding for the West Kowloon Cultural District are just a few cases in which the government has taken sides.

Due to the sums involved and the profit potential of contracts and grants, there will be many commentators, including those backed by position, money and institutions. Certainly they will have many opinions.  We should ask whether they also meet the other two criteria :  sincerity and knowledge.

On the other side, and in view of the government’s track record in taking public opinion and public consultations into account in policymaking, we members of the public should ask ourselves : in issues where we may be knowledgeable, passionate, and sincere, are we doing our best to make our views heard and to have an impact? Forums such as this one are a start. What else will make a difference?

We are familiar with our government’s inventive forecasting, be it the future traffic flow of new roads or expected revenue of theme parks, but there’s one trick we may have only just woken up to.

Here’s how it works: under the section titled “Conserving Central” in his 2009 policy address, Chief Executive Sir Donald Tsang said the government would, “taking into account the special style of this building and its premium location, .. recommend converting [Murray Building] into a hotel through open tender”.

Hey presto. Conservationists and greenies hailed its inclusion on the list and the plan to retain this 40-year old building, the design of which provides natural sunshading and has garnered it an energy efficiency award. With the Development Bureau providing artist’s impressions of what the converted interior would look like, the illusion was complete: this was to be a project to be cared for by the government or its agencies, though operated by the private sector.

So not a few people, including members of the Town Planning Board, got rather a bit of a surprise when the announcement came that Murray Building will in fact be sold to a private developer, along with the adjacent 370-square-metre plot of land.

Apparently the tender and “land lease” – yes, the government really is getting rid of it – will require the successful bidder to preserve the building’s exterior design and the trees on site – but the developer will not be required to submit its master layout for TPB approval nor will the government bother to monitor its maintenance.

Can it be called bait-and-switch, or simply being economical with the truth? Is it good governance, to deliberately muddy the waters with such an ambiguous choice of words and inclusion in a section on conservation?

Fancy the private, informal meetings in which officials assured their developer friends: “Don’t worry, we’ll put it up for sale.”

Oh to be a fly on the wall of these meetings.

You don’t find too many Art Deco buildings in Hong Kong, but these fine examples on On Lan Street in Central are set to be demolished, to make way for yet another shopping mall, courtesy of Henderson Land – the developer which is preparing to hike the price of its latest offering some more.

The wreckers are in, as the photo indicates. The buildings are boarded up or scrawled with blessings builders typically use at the start of a project. Hong Kong Magazine said the street was under threat; no it’s not, because it’s already a done deed. How much money is enough for Hong Kong’s developers?

The facts: Since 1997, Chinese people are no longer leaving Hong Kong in droves; since SARS in 2003, people are more conscious about their environment; in 2006 the government introduced the 5-day work week; in Hong Kong today the average living space is only 12 square metres
per person, and by 2030 one in four people will be aged 65 or over. So people’s attitudes to public space are changing; the demand for high-quality outdoor experiences is increasing, and the city’s street culture is set to be transformed from transport to recreation.

Join this forum with designers, planners, artists and academics to discuss art, design, activism and the forces that are shaping Hong
Kong’s street culture.

Place: Fringe Theatre
Date: 23 January 2010
Time: 10:00am-12:30pm

Join a debate on Saturday with Henry Steiner (Designer), Benny Chia (Arts administrator), Law Man-lok (Artist), Mirana May Szeto (Literature), Tony Lam (Architect) and Oscar Ho (Curator). Call 2521 7251 to reserve your free seat.

The weekend of 11-13 December 2009 is time for Graham Street Market Festival 2009 and for us to reconsider the value of space and life through the prism of Hong Kong’s oldest street market and to appreciate this unique economic activity. To paraphrase Charles Dickens: ‘It is the best of times for high-rises – it is the worst of times for a peaceful lifestyle.’

The street market is falling apart as the Urban Renewal Authority takes control over the area. Promises to maintain the street market have faded with finger pointing between the licensing authority and the renewal authority. It appears that all – including the Transport Department – are all too happy to see the market ‘finally’ disappear. Sad,angry, upset? Tell the Chief Executive via ceo@ceo.gov.hk.

Over the market, market over yet?
Exhibition: 12 Dec 2009-12 Jan 2010, 7am-5pm daily
Hoi Wan Cafe, 28 Gage Street, Central
Since 2008, photographers from Photosynthesis have been recording the cultural landscape of Hong Kong communities including the Graham Street Market. The photographers Yvette Hui, Arnold Lee, Birdy Lee, Winfred Li, Ronald Leung, Bendick Leung, Andrew Tse and Stanley Ng question the destruction of the market.

Sold Out
Movie: 12 Dec (Fri) 6-8pm
Hoi Wan Cafe, 28 Gage Street, Central
This 13-minute documentary (Cantonese with Chinese and English subtitles) is produced by Lee Kin Ho. ‘Sold Out’ directs public attention to a humble story. It records the last day of the Wong family who were forced to leave their home at 29 Graham Street on 29 March this year. Mr and Mrs Wong recount 50 years of good and bad days during which life was tough yet there was always a way. Today, while many sing the praises of society’s development and progress, the Wongs have to leave behind the home of their happiness and sorrow, away from their old street full of memories and friendship. Progress of society appears only an illusion.

Nine-Carte Flea Market
13 Dec (Sun) 1:30-5:30pm
Hoi Wan Cafe, 28 Gage Street, Central
Come and see how a traditional café transforms itself into a flea market, and check out creative products by local artists and designers!

Conserving the Right Way: The History and Afterlife of SOHO’s Tong Lau
Seminar and City Tour 13 Dec (Sun) 3pm
Culture Club, 15 Elgin Street, Central
Dr Ho Puay Peng from the Department of Architecture, Chinese University of Hong Kong, will lead a visit of tong lau clusters in Central followed by a seminar. Many tong lau were built in the 1950s in the SOHO area. These modest Chinese residences are each facing a different future as some are conserved and renovated, preserving the unique landscape of the area, while others are to be demolished to make way for urban renewal. How special are tong lau? What choice do we have?

Raging Along the Rail: A Diary of Choi Yuen
Movie: 11 Dec (Fri) 6:30-8:15pm
Hoi Wan Cafe, 28 Gage Street, Central
Produced by the Choi Yuen Support Group and V-Artivist, this Cantonese movie (80 minutes) tells the story of Choi Yuen village which is forced to make way for the Express Rail link. It is the story of many Hong Kong residents: how homes and public spaces are lost to development and infrastructure. There will be a sharing session with representatives of the Choi Yuen Support Group and the movie producer Chan Yin Kai.

Registrations and Enquiries
For registrations and enquiries call 2127 4504 or email: contact@project-see.net. Seats are limited. Entrance fee is $100 and includes one drink.

HK Magazine this week asks whether the Government’s initiative to stimulate revitalisation of industrial buildings will help or hinder the creative and entrepreneurial communities which Hong Kong desperately needs more of.

We don’t need marble; we need cheap rent.
The article points out that after “The Factory” in Wong Chuk Hang was upgraded, the rent more than doubled. It describes the worries of the growing number of ‘creative tenants’ in older industrial buildings. According to the manager of a 18,000 sq ft rehearsal venue in San Po Kong: “We don’t need marble floors; we only need cheap rent.”

Research and creativity need low cost of experimentation
The obstacle in Hong Kong for creative, design, research and entrepreneurial talent is the cost of time and space needed to experiment. Free marketers will say the C word: Let China and especially Shenzhen cater for this. Once businesses are successful and can afford the rent and salaries, they’ll move back to Hong Kong to be close to the financial and business centre. If it was ever so easy to move back and forth!

Help creatives pay the rent
The Government could concentrate more on market demand and review its lowest-cost procurement system, which leaves little room for creativity. ‘Design’ can be made part of tender requirements. Government can employ design services separately to develop concepts and designs prior to procurement, and to update standards and guidelines for the many ‘recurring’ items it purchases.

More land premiums to buy more creativity
From Government literature to street side amenities – the better it looks, the more the public will demand a better quality design for products, services, and their living environment. That will help ‘creative types’ pay rent for revitalised industrial buildings, and in turn enable landlords to pay land premiums to Government.

Land premiums go to the Capital Works Reserve Fund; however, ‘buying creativity’ primarily impacts Government budgets covered by general revenue. We are sure someone can resolve that one. After all, why keep the Capital Works Reserve Fund now that we are part of China?

They weren’t destroyed to begin with. Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, no doubt spooked by China’s desire to revive Shanghai’s fortune as a financial centre and neighbouring Guangdong’s readiness to revitalise old industrial buildings by turning them into hip museums, is currently all keen to promote the “creative industries”.

The film industry is among them, and stands to benefit from a HK$300 million Film Development Fund established “to encourage more commercial investment in film productions, create a larger mass of film activity and more employment opportunities, and assist the film industry in revitalising and developing further.”

See what I mean about the government being selective when it comes to choosing which economic sector should be subsidised and which, such as the agricultural sector, should be left to the whims of the market. Anyway, one thing is certain: it would not have occurred to the powers that be to reflect that, had it taken a more active interest in protecting and preserving Hong Kong’s heritage, it would have been much more successful – and economical – in nurturing the film industry.

As the years go by, filmmakers have found it increasingly difficult to find locations for shooting historical scenes and, as a result, have been forced to go somewhere else in order to find similar-looking locations or build more cost-effective sets. To take just one example: Teddy Chen and Peter Chan Ho-sun had to go to Shanghai to build a replica Central that cost US$5 million for their film “Bodyguards and Assassins”. (Scroll to watch a preview.)

Now if more effort had been made to preserve the city’s heritage, directors and producers such as these might not have to turn to Hong Kong’s old rival for a solution. OK, so the film set is about the size of ten football fields, and no way can this government be expected to prevent development from proceeding on any land mass of that size. The more the pity, if we look at other truly world-class cities, like London and Paris, where blocks of historical buildings remain standing, providing citizens with a constant reminder of their rich heritage, giving tourists something worth exploring and filmmakers with plenty of choices for period shoots. Just imagine how nice Central would look today if Pedder Building, for example, remained surrounded by equally historic structures. Or how useful it would be to preserve Wan Chai Market as it was, instead of forcing it against the backdrop of an incongruous high-rise that a filmmaker who fancies setting a scene with the market as a backdrop would have to, what, CGI out of each frame?

One aim of the Film Development Fund is “to promote Hong Kong films on the Mainland and overseas”, but that’s too little too late already: people in the industry are already finding financial backers as well as audience in China, and increasingly the technical personnel as well. They don’t need to put up with the red tape that so frustrated the makers of “The Dark Knight” either. Which means much of the revenue from these films will, of course, go somewhere else other than Hong Kong too.

The Central and Western District Concern Group is fighting to keep the ambience of Old Central. They call on everyone to OBJECT to the Urban Renewal Authority development project H19 – which covers Staunton Street/Wing Lee Street/Bridges Street.

The deadline for objections on the Town Planning Application A/H3/387 is TODAY, 24 March 2009, at midnight.

For more information click here or visit www.centralandwestern.org. Or if you know how it works, you can send your OBJECTIONS directly to the Town Planning Board at tpbpd@pland.gov.hk or use the TPB online comment form (click here).

The affected area is just behind the Hollywood Road Police Quarters. It is largely low-rise and links up our historic city from the Central Police Station to Tai Ping Shan.

The beautiful Wing Lee Street with its row of tong laus is the backdrop for Cheung Yuen Ting’s movie which is being shot now. Go and see how the area has been done up. If the H19 URA plan is allowed to go ahead, Wing Lee Street and all the tong laus which have been beautifully renovated by their owners will be destroyed.

The current plans
Site A (Wing Lee Street): a row of 6-storey low-rise (9 of the original 12 tong laus will be demolished, only 3 will be kept);
Site B (88-90 Staunton Street & 2-10 Shing Wong Street): an 8-13 storey building behind the tong lau in 88-90 Staunton Street;
Site C (60-66 Staunton Street, corner Aberdeen Street): 28-storey high-rise with podium.

Central and Western District Concern Group’s requests

1. The entire site should comprise only low-rise (less than 6 storey) buildings.
2. All the historic low-rise tong laus (tenement buildings) on Wing Lee Street should be preserved.
3. New developments should comprise only small land blocks, in keeping with the current characteristics of the area.
4. Bridges Street Market should be re-zoned (to GIC) for community use.
5. Current owners should be allowed to live in their already renovated buildings.