The fate of Public Square and Top-down Planning

To redress traffic congestion in the Central, the public square across the Edinburg place is proposed to close for building a temporary link road connecting from General Post Office to the headquarters of the People's Liberation Army.

The highway department said that the link road is needed urgently as the traffic congestion will get worse especially after Hong Kong Central Station is established. To preserve a place for the use of local people and tourists, it is also proposed that the temporary road would be closed at the weekends and public holidays. Besides, it is emphasized that the waterfront pavement would be preserved for the public to enjoy a beautiful harbor's scene. With these reasons, the department has submitted a demolition plan to the Chief executive in Council for an approval under the Road Ordinance.

However, the Conservancy Association is very dissatisfied with this plan which is only designed to meet transportation need. The spokesman of the Conservancy Association, Hung Wing Tak, strongly criticized that the plan was designed to tackle traffic problems at the expense of the public square of historic value. He said that the plan which ignored Hong Kong historical heritage is definitely inconsistent with the spirit of heritage preservation upheld in the Policy address.

The public square located in the front of the Queen's pier had been a place on which new governors must step from the pier with their first parades. It represents the colonial trait in Hong Kong history. Since this, the preservation of the public square should be strongly supported.

This incident-rezoning the use of the Edinburgh place-sufficiently spotlights that Hong Kong planning system does not have any civic element which is to initiate public participation into plan-making. In this case, it is only seen that the highway department, based on the transportation consideration, submits the plan to the Chief Executive in Council. Once this plan is approved under the Road ordinance, it would be deemed as part of the plan approved under the Town Planning Ordinance. But in no place can citizen join the design of a plan for the Edinburgh place which is supposed to be a public place.

On the basis of the statistics, the Department argued that changing the public square into a temporary link road would not affect any pedestrians as each day only small number of people, 4120, used this place. Despite this, it is very surprised that those who always use the public square cannot play any role in designing the use of the Edinburgh Place. Perhaps nobody bothers to object the plan when other living pressures occupy their daily concerns. It does not prove that the plan is the only reasonable and feasible one. Indeed the design of the public square could be in a wide array if "community planning" is incorporated into the Town Planning Ordinance.