放眼天下：Hopewell revised plan to achieve win-win-win
The long-proposed and debated development project of Hopewell Centre II has made significant progress. Hopewell Holdings, the developer now agrees to replace its original plan with a new one that sharply lowers the plot ratio and reduces the height of the tower. The new plan will be presented to the Government later. If approved, construction of the project could kick off next year.
This is a "win-win-win" result for the Government, citizens and environmental groups. Firstly, the development project was proposed as early as in 1996, but has been shelved due to controversies over height of the tower, evaluation of its impact on traffic and environment. During the period, environmental activists protested and the developer lost its temper, with the Government being caught in-between and the project reaching an impasse. Secondly, now, in face of the financial tsunami, people are panicky and investors are losing their appetite for investment. At such a difficult time, the announcement to "defrost" the Hopewell Centre II project is really a piece of good, inspiring news.
It is of great significance in several respects that the deadlock over Hopewell Centre II project could finally be broken by the developer initiating revisions to its original plan. In the first place, the developer Hopewell Holdings, on its own, has initiated scaling down the project, reducing the tower from 93 stories to 55 and hotel capacity from 2,197 guestrooms to some 1,024. As a result, the project's gross floor area will be reduced by 31%. Such large-scale adjustment or concession could be said to be rather "shocking". But this "shocking" result in fact was reached out of practical considerations. The fact is that if the original plan was not revised, the Hopewell Centre II project would unlikely be approved by the Town Planning Board out of environmental and traffic concerns. Both sides will suffer losses in a long-lasting standoff and the developer will be the biggest loser. Now, with adjustments made, the project can get started, and the developer can also win the reputation for caring for environmental protection and listening to "public opinion". So why not do it？
Of course, with the gross floor area cut by 31 %, the developer's profits will be reduced considerably. Nevertheless, getting the project started is of utmost importance. Furthermore, the assessment on land premium can be re-negotiated. Thirdly, the costs of raw materials have dropped. On the whole, therefore, the advantages outweigh disadvantages.
The whole episode reminds people that for some large-scale urban planning projects, how to better balance development and environmental protection, and to better balance the interests between developers and citizens, is indeed an issue that deserves further study.
Taking the Hopewell Centre II project for example, if the developer had insisted on its original plan, a 93-storey tower would indeed break the ridge line of Wan Chai Mid-levels, which would be very regrettable and unacceptable. Seen from the other side of the Victoria Harbour, the zigzag ridge line is an invaluable treasure of Hong Kong's natural scenery. High-rises erected in Mid-levels during British rule have already caused irremediable damage to the beautiful ridge line of Victoria Peak. The SAR Government today must not commit the same error. But urban land in Hong Kong is very limited, and thus private property ownership and the right to develop must also be respected. It is certainly undesirable to damage the environment, but neither is it proper, when development is concerned, to "throw out the baby with the bathwater". Only an appropriate balance between the two will truly benefit citizens.
Similarly, in response to citizens and environmental groups' criticisms of the so-called "wall effect", the Government earlier announced it would sharply reduce the property projects' density above MTR's Yuen Long and Nam Cheong stations, changing the number of buildings in a row from 10 to three to leave more room for air flow. Total gross floor area therefore will drop by about 20% and land premium will also be reduced. Despite the revisions, however, some environmental groups yesterday insisted it was not enough, saying "While big walls are gone, there are more small walls,"…… At such a crucial moment to develop the economy, to encourage investment and to create jobs, can environmental groups please make do with "small walls"? An early start of the projects is more in accord with citizens' interests.
20 November 2008
