Legislators have succeeded in urging the government to lengthen the submission process for development proposals on the West Kowloon Cultural District development project by three months. It is a small victory, but not the outcome that I and a large number of Legco colleagues would have preferred.

This is a very big undertaking, one that will transform the area, and I do not wish to see it go ahead while there is so much discord and apprehension among the various groups who have a stake in the project. Nor can I see any reason for pressing ahead at a time when land premiums are still low.

If this development will indeed place Hong Kong uncontestably at the forefront of arts and culture in Asia, then it is worth taking the time to make sure that every aspect of the scheme is perfect. No one would dispute the creative excellence of the design, but governments have to be concerned with practicalities as well as imagery. A team of mountaineers is required to wash the glass panes of the pyramid at the Louvre. How will our own glass canopy be maintained? Who will carry out the cleaning? How much will it cost? These are mundane questions, I freely admit, but they are important.

And what is the point of an impressive architectural icon if what takes place beneath its portals does not match up to the grandeur of the facade? Who does not want to see Hong Kong as the cultural capital of Asia? But that is why I am anxious to see it carried through from the outset with sound planning and strict controls, and the highest degree of transparency.

Putting the entire project into the hands of a single developer could be rather risky. The first potential mistake - in my view - is in narrowing the field by restricting the tendering process to companies with the fiscal power to bid for the HK$24 billion project. Also restricting it to firms that have been involved in at least one mixed-use development with a total construction cost of not less than $3 billion, as well as managing, marketing and leasing large developments.

That decision dramatically cuts down competition in the tendering process, and may result in a lower sum for the land - if, as could very easily happen - the big developers form a cartel with the purpose of driving down the price. If that happened, public interest would be damaged because the government - and therefore the Hong Kong taxpayer - would have surrendered the valuable asset.

According to Chief Secretary Mr Donald Tsang's argument, dividing the project into smaller packages and inviting tenders from smaller developers would fragment the whole enterprise and involve the Government in the planning process. He claims this would be impractical, involving complex interlocking land leases, and requiring the Government to design the canopy, the automated people mover and other parts of the infrastructure. It would also involve the authorities in drawing up a master plan based on uncertain assumptions of what would be commercially viable.

But there are genuine worries in the culture and arts sectors, other than the professional bodies, the real estate sector and the Legco, about the present approach. They fear that a cultural showpiece run by a profit-orientated developer could become unworthy of its name. There can be no room for failure in an undertaking on this scale, flagged as an icon of artistic excellence outshining the rest of Asia. The Government should take heed of these concerns, because the expectations are very high.

Given the widespread disquiet expressed in so many quarters, I remain convinced that it would be expedient to shelve the project temporarily. I do not see any urgency to develop this site, no matter what Mr Tsang may say. And from the cultural sector representatives I have spoken with, it seems to me that we have currently already got quite an adequate number of facilities.

A delay would allow more time for widespread and thorough consultation among the interested parties, resulting in plans that make everyone feel comfortable and confident. Instead of handing this massive tender to a single developer, why not follow the model on which our international airport at Chek Lap Kok was created, and set up an organization along the lines of the Hong Kong Airport Authority?

The Government should consider setting up a statutory body, perhaps called the West Kowloon Development Authority, which could include representatives from government circles, developers, people from the arts and cultural sector, architects and other interested parties.

The land could be handed over to the Authority as an asset. It could be charged with raising the necessary capital, as well as undertaking the co-ordination, planning and design. This way, there need be no fears about a lack of integration between the different parts of the development. With that approach, the project could be put out to multiple tender, thereby offering a fairer and more acceptable means of allocating the work.

On a project of this scale, things could go just as seriously wrong when there is a single developer than if there are several.

I cannot see any merit in Mr Tsang's argument that a delay will put the whole scheme into wraps for another decade. Waiting one more year will give time for land premiums to rise. It will allow the entire process to be more transparent - and as the Government knows very well - when public consultation and information are paramount - there is much less risk of error and dissatisfaction.

Close Window| Print this page