Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning

478

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
478
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Community College of City University<br />DSS20002<br />Social Policy and Administration<br />SE Kowloon (Kai Tak) Planning <br />(T02) Team C & D<br />Group Members: Lau Hiu Tung, Winnie<br />                        Ip Mei Sz, Grace<br />                        Lai Kwok Yiu, Antonio<br />                        Ip Pak Wing, Micky<br />                        Chan Wai Cheong, Hale<br />                        Wong Sze Yuen, Oscar<br />                        Lam Wing Hei, Eric<br />
  • 2. Background Information<br /><ul><li>July 1998 => Hong Kong International Airport moved to Chep Lap Kok
  • 3. Government started to plan the re-development of the area after the Kai Tak airport was closed.
  • 4. Aim: To develop Kai Tak as a Heritage, Green, Sports and Tourism hub of Hong Kong</li></li></ul><li>Planning<br /><ul><li>Sept 1991 ->Passed the MetroplanSelected Strategy by the Executive Council
  • 5. Jun 1992 -> Planning Department conducted the South East Kowloon Development
  • 6. Sept 1995 -> Feasibility Study for Southeast Kowloon Development
  • 7. Nov 1999 -> Launched a new Comprehensive Feasibility Study for the Revised Scheme of Southeast Kowloon  
  • 8. Jun 2002 -> Passed the Comprehensive Feasibility Study for the Revised Scheme of Southeast Kowloon</li></li></ul><li>Who are involved?<br /><ul><li>Government</li></ul>Territorial Development Department<br /><ul><li>Harbor-front Enhancement Committee (HEC)</li></ul>Non-Governmental Organization(NGO)<br />
  • 9. Sub-Committees<br />
  • 10.
  • 11. Main issues of controversy<br />The development of a huge Harbor-front area<br />The prioritization of such space for residential, sports and tourists purposes<br />The preservation of a treasured historical site.<br />The issue of economic development<br />The connectivity between the future Kai Tak Development and neighbor districts<br /> The issue of reclamation<br />  <br /> <br />
  • 12. New Mechanisms<br /><ul><li>Harbor-front Enhancement Committee(HEC)
  • 13. Three Stage Consultation</li></ul>“In determining vision and key issue”<br />“Outline Concept Plans”<br />“ Preliminary Outline Development Plan”<br />
  • 14. Three Stage Consultation<br />
  • 15. After the Stage 3:<br />Business area                            <br />Sports hub*<br />Metro park*<br />Waterfront residential area<br />Tourism hub with a cruise terminal and heliport at the tip of the former Kai Tal runway<br />Mixed use area at the south apron<br />Kai Tak City Centre<br />Sports hub<br />Metro park<br />Runway Precinct<br />Tourism and Leisure Hub<br />South Apron Corner<br />More Green Open Space<br />Stadium and Cruise Terminal <br />CANCEL<br /> 200M High-rise Hotel<br /> heliport<br />Draft preliminary outline development plan<br />Finalized preliminary outline development plan<br />
  • 16. Sports Hub<br />Kai Tak City Centre<br />South Apron Corner<br />Metro Park<br />Runway Precinct<br />Tourism and Leisure Hub<br />
  • 17. Evaluation(HEC, TPB, District Council)<br />
  • 18. Evaluation<br />Overall view<br />Government->Conventional mode are important and good enough<br />CSO -> Conventional mode is ineffective<br />
  • 19. Evaluation(HEC, TPB, District Council)<br />
  • 20. Institutional arrangement-Membership<br />HEC<br />CSO: (New mechanism)<br />Enhance the independent and reduce governmental domination<br />Check and balance effect <br />Government : (New mechanism)<br />Repeat on the same issue<br />Time consuming because CSOs attend different meeting with different representatives.<br /> <br />  <br />
  • 21.  <br />TPB<br /> CSO: (Conventional)<br />Absent of grassroots and civil society because of government domination and appointment<br /> Government: (Conventional)<br />Ensure the impartiality of management and secretariat service to be provided to the Town Planning Board(TPB).<br /> District Council <br /> CSO: (New Mechanism)<br />Limited professional knowledge, little training and technical support by the government<br /> Government: (New Mechanism)<br />Different views, difficult to fully incorporate the views of CSOs.<br /> <br />
  • 22. Institutional arrangement-Functions, powers, resources, and support<br />HEC<br />CSO: (New mechanism)<br />Resources are provided by the government <br />Less information can be accessed<br />Less resources to undertake impartial research on planning issue<br />Government does not fully provide the financial and administrative support<br />
  • 23. Institutional arrangement-Agenda setting power and decision-making rules<br />HEC<br /> CSO: (New mechanism)<br />Government was only keen on its own agenda<br />Government was far less responsive to harbor related issues<br />
  • 24. Actors–Conceptions of engagement<br />Government: (Conventional)<br />Constitute meaningful civic engagement<br />CSO: (Conventional)<br />Regard that the bureaucratic domination and ”professional arrogance” lead the official reluctant to release information to the public<br /> CSO: (New mechanism)<br />Have a role in shaping the initial agenda and they could have a say in the earliest phase of planning<br />
  • 25. Reasons of different conceptions<br />The senior officials regard themselves are the guardians of public interest and they have to balance the need for the whole community<br />CSOs are simply advocating their own sectoral or business interests. Thus they cannot fully balance the pros and cons in planning projects<br />Officials are responsible for the policy and accountable to the community<br />CSOs agree with what the officials think but the local resistance should not be ignored and local interests do not necessarily coincide with broader societal interests<br />
  • 26. Actors-Interests and incentive<br />Government ->strong incentive :<br />Low popularity <br />Unexpected strong opposition to the previous OZPs<br />Political groups and Legislative council criticize the government for not allowing adequate public participation<br />CSO ->strong incentive:<br />Professionals<br />They have professional standards and concerns<br />They may want to get the contracts for particular projects<br />Political parties<br />Put pressure on the government <br />
  • 27. Choice of chairmanship(HEC and sub committee)<br />Able to work effectively<br /><ul><li>Building more trust and understanding</li></ul>Planning through interactions<br />Allowing the HEC to conduct some civic engagement activities and less domination on the agenda setting<br />Officials follow the CSO's promise and request<br /><ul><li>Transparency and feedback</li></ul>HEC attends high degree of transparency<br />Immediate feedback<br />Engagement process-Factors of Facilitating Civic Engagement<br />
  • 28. Six Recommendations<br /><ul><li>Emphasizing the value of public engagement in developing the harbor
  • 29. Streamlining the three-stage programmeinto a two-stage programme
  • 30. Better time management
  • 31. The phasing of engagement activities of different reviews/studies to avoid "consultation fatigue"
  • 32. The use of different formats
  • 33. The use of different aids</li></li></ul><li>Government should....<br /><ul><li>Provide more impartial information as early as possible
  • 34. Allocate more resources to hire more consultants
  • 35. Set up a fund to offer independent and professional advice</li></li></ul><li>HEC should improve.....<br />Prioritizations of issues <br /><ul><li>Time management
  • 36. Consensus building</li></ul>Allocation of more resources<br /><ul><li>Establishment of an independent secretariat serving the HEC
  • 37. Insistence of a small number of representatives which could render the deliberation unproductive
  • 38. Meetings are not repeatedly debated
  • 39. Enhancement of trust among the participants</li></li></ul><li>Advisory and Statutory Bodies Should..<br />Coordinate more with other existing advisory and statutory bodies to avoid overlapping<br />The TPB should explore whether it should have and independent chairman, an independent secretariat, a different mode of operation and different rules for membership appointment<br />
  • 40. Thank You!!<br />

×