Treating the Symptoms - A Critical Review of ... - Civic Exchange

More documents

Recommendations

Info

J-ResidenceLocation:Access hours:Management:3rd floor rooftop. Accessible from elevator on Tai Wong RoadEast.11a.m.- 11p.mPrivate82This rooftop garden area on top of the preserved Woo Cheong Pawn Shop House clusteris an unofficial public open space. It is not marked on the Master Layout Plans or on theland lease, and does not appear on the Lands Department’s list of privately-managed publicspaces. It was made accessible to the public through an agreement between the URA andthe government. 171The ambiguous status of this space has led to some conflicts since it has opened — restaurantstaff have complained about littering, while members of the public have sometimes foundthemselves barred from entrance when the restaurant uses it for private functions. In aneffort to mediate these conflicts, the URA has hired a security guard to ensure access to theroof, give brochures to visitors, and monitor public behavior.
General ObservationsLandscapingGenerally speaking, the landscaping of privately-managedsemi-commercialized public open spaces was of a higherquality than that used in spaces intended mainly forresidential users. This is because the amenity value providedby open spaces in a commercial setting brings financialbenefits to the shopping centre operator by attracting andkeeping shoppers. This makes them more willing to payfor good quality landscaping including high-maintenancefeatures such as wooden paving and water fountains. Spacesintended for residential users do not bring commensuratecommercial benefits. These were usually turned over to theLCSD or in a few cases to the URA itself to manage. Asa result, they were more likely to use standardized designsand materials geared more towards ease of maintenancethan to providing a pleasant environment.AccessibilityThe provision of public open space within privatedevelopments resulted in some accessibility problems. TheHong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines on openspace encourage the provision of public (and private) openspaces by the private sector, which are often provided atpodium level or in places requiring one to pass throughprivate property in order to reach them. This necessarilyintroduces time access restrictions due to security issues.Open spaces in such locations at the sites visited didnot permit 24-hour access, whether they were managedprivately or by the government.Providing open spaces at podium level also results inpractical accessibility problems. Even if those areas arephysically accessible by stairs, escalators, or elevators, thepeople do not necessarily know about them, may not beable to find them, and have little occasion to use themin the course of their daily routines. The Langham Placepodium garden manages to capture some users from thecooked food market and community centre, but the Pawnand the upper levels of the Vision City open space werepractically empty.The Dilemmas ofSemi-Public SpacesThe Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines onrecreation, open space and greening have encouraged theprivate provision of open spaces, both public and private,since the mid-1990s. At the time, this was thought to bea good way of providing more open spaces without greatgovernment expense due to Hong Kong’s severe spaceshortages and high land costs. This model was embraced bythe URA, but was also encouraged in many purely privatesector developments.However, semi-public spaces can be problematic becausethe public’s interest in having maximum freedom to usethe space conflicts with the private manager’s interest incontrolling the space and minimizing maintenance costs.Some spaces are able to mediate these conflicts better thanothers.For a semi-public space to function successfully, thesefactors need to be present:1. The semi-public space is visible and convenientlyaccessible from other public spaces (i.e. the street).The general public should not have to pass throughmuch private property in order to reach it. Otherwise,only those who have a reason to be in the privatespace will have occasion to use the public space. Onlyshoppers will use a shopping mall’s podium garden;other passers-by will not traverse a shopping mall justto reach it.2.3.Heavy use by the general public aligns with privateinterests. A shopping centre courtyard fits thedescription, because shopping centres profit fromattracting many people. The rooftop garden of arestaurant does not, nor does a pedestrian concourselocated in the middle of a residential development. Inparticular, a semi-public space should not be located ina place where the public will compromise the securityor privacy of the building’s private users.There must be a clear and equitable agreementdelineating rights and responsibilities of both themanagement and the public in the space. It mustdescribe the public’s rights of access, and the extentto which the management is allowed to benefitcommercially from the space (if at all). The agreementmust then be enforced.Public spaces that do not fulfil the first condition arelikely to be underutilized, while those that do not fulfilthe second are prone to mismanagement as the managershave an incentive to keep the public out. Spaces that failthe third condition are likely to have conflicts over who isallowed to do what in them. For example, the managementmay attempt to inappropriately rent the space out forcommercial purposes when the developer has already beengranted GFA concessions to provide the space for publicbenefit.Recent controversies over semi-public space have resultedfrom one or more of these problems. These events havepersuaded the TPB to rethink its position on privatelyprovisionedpublic open space, particularly in residentialdevelopments. In 2008, the TPB announced that theDevelopment Bureau should no longer ask it to acceptpublic open spaces in private developments as ‘planninggain’, 172 especially not in residential developments. It saidthat it would “from now on carefully consider the location,design and implementation prospects of public facilitiesproposed under any future planning applications beforedeciding whether such provision would be accepted as aplanning gain.” 17383
Page 7:
The Local Context:Evolving Communit
Page 10 and 11:
Hong Kong Urban Design ConcernsHong
Page 12 and 13:
12In 1998, the Planning Department
Page 14 and 15:
Part I:14The URA —A Redevelopment
Page 16 and 17:
Version 2:The Urban RenewalAuthorit
Page 18 and 19:
URA Ordinance vs.Urban Renewal Stra
Page 20 and 21:
How The URA WorksThe Cycle ofResump
Page 22 and 23:
PART II:22The PoliticalEconomyof th
Page 24 and 25:
The Institutional ContextNationaliz
Page 26 and 27:
26traditionally given the Lands Dep
Page 28 and 29:
28maximum allowable plot ratio —
Page 31 and 32: Left: Multi-ownership with inadequa
Page 33 and 34: Weak building maintenanceregulation
Page 35 and 36: Lack of FinancingOne significant pr
Page 37 and 38: Left: Graham Streetrequirement. 137
Page 39 and 40: Left: Graham Streetthe 1970s to ind
Page 41 and 42: From the point of view of private d
Page 43 and 44: The Built EnvironmentPart I discuss
Page 45 and 46: Left: The K11 shopping mall, hotel,
Page 48 and 49: Box 4Calculating Plot RatioPlot rat
Page 50 and 51: 50Standardized ArchitectureStandard
Page 53 and 54: Left: Langham Place, blank facade o
Page 56 and 57: 56Figure-ground diagram of Langham
Page 58 and 59: 58This page: Footbridge network ove
Page 61: Left: Wo Tik Street - the only acti
Page 65 and 66: Public Open Spaces and Pedestrian P
Page 67 and 68: The MertonThe Merton in Kennedy Tow
Page 69 and 70: Left: The widened pavement along Sh
Page 71 and 72: Langham PlaceThere are often paveme
Page 73 and 74: Recreational Public Open SpacesQuan
Page 75: Hanoi Road K11 Open SpaceSize: 1,20
Page 78 and 79: 78Clockwise from left: The ground f
Page 81: The MertonTotal size (sites A and B
Page 85: The URA also announced that it had
Page 88 and 89: Box 6The Counterproductive Pursuito
Page 91 and 92: Opposite, clockwise from top right:
Page 93 and 94: Social ImpactSocially sustainable d
Page 96 and 97: Left: Western Market has become pri
Page 98 and 99: 98This spread from left: This anony
Page 100 and 101: Top: A naturally gentrified street
Page 102 and 103: 102Comprehensive redevelopment disp
Page 104 and 105: 104Luxury shopping at the K11 mall
Page 106 and 107: 106A building rehabilitated by the
Page 108 and 109: According to town planner Ian Brown
Page 110 and 111: 110
Page 112 and 113: 112Wan Chai Market. Built in 1937,
Page 114 and 115: 114
Page 116 and 117: 116
Page 118 and 119: 118Conclusion
Page 120 and 121: 120
Page 122 and 123: Appendix 1Name of projectAddress/lo
Page 124 and 125: Name of projectAddress/locationArea
Page 126 and 127: 126Endnotes1 HKSAR Planning Departm
Page 128 and 129: 128110 Chan, B. W. (2002), “The h
Page 130: Room 701, Hoseinee House,69 Wyndham
show all

Treating the Symptoms - A Critical Review of ... - Civic Exchange

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?