Archives

皇后碼頭的共識﹖

Queens Pier

去年十二月時﹐政府清拆天星碼頭引起一場小風波﹐數十名反對清拆人士佔據碼頭與警方對峙。最終鬧劇完滿落幕﹐天星碼頭得以順利清拆﹐沒有影響填海工程。天星碼頭沒有什麼歷史意義﹐拆了也不可惜﹐在天星碼頭旁邊的皇后碼頭﹐畢境是歷代港督上任登岸之處﹐有保留下來歷史價值。政府亦從善如流聽取反對聲音﹐提出原件重置皇后碼頭的保育方案。可惜反對清拆人士並不領情﹐誓要爭取原地保留皇后碼頭。他們抗議政府沒有他們達成共識﹐可是政府有可能與非理性的反清拆者達成共識嗎﹖

在一個協商的過程中﹐當雙方利益有衝突時﹐透過討論磋商去達成一個雙方也可接受的方案﹐是為共識。當然由於雙方的開價條件不同﹐雙方也必須要作出某程度上的讓步﹐才可以有達成共識的空間。在皇后碼頭這事件上﹐政府原本的計劃是清拆碼頭﹐現在政府作成本評估﹐考慮反清拆人士的要求後﹐提出修定方案作出善意的讓步﹐希望於愛丁堡廣場重置皇碼頭可以達成共識。反觀反清拆人士那方﹐他們在收到重置方案後﹐沒有好好考慮方案內容可否接受﹐再提出可行的修訂方案﹐反而盲目地堅持他們最初的訴求。試問若一方堅持寸步不讓﹐協商又怎可能達成共識呢﹖再者在這個議題上的協商者也不是只有政府和反清拆者兩方﹐還有支持完全清拆碼頭的發展商和建築界。那麼他們的意見又有沒有被考慮﹐有沒有與他們達成共識呢﹖反清拆者啊﹐請不要用「共識」二字誤導市民﹐你們爭取的不是共識﹐而是政府要完全聽你們的話﹐妄顧其他互方人士意見的徹底勝利。

在政府的重置方案計劃書中﹐ 政府列出不同保留皇后碼頭方案的成本﹐明顯地重置方案是最乎合成本效益﹐亦同時在歷史價值與成本上取得很好的平衡。香港大部份市民和主流傳媒也接納那些數字﹐可是反清拆者死不認輸﹐控訴政府跨大數字來誤導民意﹐要求政府公開內部的估價資料。其實那些估價資料也不是什麼機密文件﹐反對者大可以申請查閱﹐不過我很懷疑他們看不看得懂。跟據以往政府填海工程的開支﹐在重置方案計劃書的數目是可信的。若反對者還是認為有問題﹐大可以委託獨立工程顧問作估價﹐再題出合理的數據。而不是像現在那樣﹐只要政府的計劃不合他們心意﹐就放開嗓子說政府不公。要指控政府跨大成本﹐也至少要告訴市民大約跨大了多少吧。全世界政府的大部份工程預算﹐只會有超支不會有盈餘﹐我倒懷疑目前計劃書中的數目﹐最後夠不夠錢來埋單找數。

皇后碼頭有歷史價值這點是不容置異的﹐ 但是否必須要原地保留才可以保存其歷史價值呢﹖正當反清拆者高呼要政府公開各方案的詳細工程成本﹐去讓市民衡量付出的成本是否值得時。反清拆也該做點功課﹐研究一下各方案對皇后碼頭歷史價值的影響﹐讓市民可以衡量取回的價值是否成正比。現在的重置方案絕對物有所價﹐既能保留皇后碼頭的原貌﹐新址與原址又相距不遠﹐還有涼亭的實際功用。若果原地保留可以保存所有歷史價值﹐完全清拆一件不留則歷史價值灰飛煙滅﹐那覓地重置的歷史價值應該介乎兩者之間吧。反清拆者﹐請告訴市民重置方案會令皇后碼頭損失多少百份比的歷史價值﹐總不是重置與完全清拆沒有分別吧。還有請公開計算歷史價值損失的詳細資料﹐不要甪虛無瓢渺的後現代詞語去跨大損失﹐不然反清拆者與政府也只是一丘之貉﹐為著自己的議題去誤導市民。

最後我認為把皇后碼頭重置在填海後的新海岸﹐讓皇后碼頭繼續其碼頭的功用就最理想﹐可惜看來政府與反清拆者也不會考慮我這個方案呢。

4 comments to 皇后碼頭的共識﹖

  • Wherever there’s a re-development in Hong Kong, hevangel always believe those local resistance is an obstacle. In hevangel’s idea, those local resistances should give way to the new project or do more researches to provide evidences to support their view.

    How lucky we are as residents of downunder New Zealand (not Australia). Any development in New Zealand need to summit to the members of the public. Locals, in many cases, have the power to overture developments forcing developers to downsize the project. New Zealand is more democratic in this kind of issues and local voices are more respected. On the downside, such policy makes developers’ job harder to do. It also makes New Zealand cities are so “countryside” and ‘under develop” because the locals always object big developments and big buildings. However, many old buildings are able to stay intact at the same location, also NZ’s world famous natural environment.

    Hevangel seems to have no mercy to those locals and do not understand their emotions that are attached to those sites. Underclass locals may not have to same level of education. They are not ready to argue, present their view logically and academically. Don’t hevangel sees those developers and government are kind of bullies to the locals? Does “economics benefit” is the good reason to hijack or override local opinions? I do not mean we should ignore economics but should there be a better balance between them?

  • In general, I like new things, so do most HK people.

    In this case, it is quite different from other redevelopment project that locals got pushed out without reasonable compensation. The government does not bully anyone since the place is a government properties to begin with. The opponents are the social lefties background with more than enough academic arguments to support their local-culture ideology. The opinion of majority HK people are quite pragmatic and opt for the redevelopment. It is the “historical value” of the lefties hijack and override the local opinions.

  • kate

    i am afraid i can’t agree with you.
    i don’t think that queen pier has any historical value and most of the hong kong people don’t have much emotion to it. it’s okay to dismantle it.
    however, and i am even disagree that u say resettling queen pier is a method more. the only value of queen pier is as a logo of old hong kong. but if it resettle, it’s meaningless!

  • pqr

    Obviously there are opinion at the two extremes.

Leave a Reply