Random Quote

The propensity to truck, barter and exchange one thing for another is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals. — Adam Smith

Current Reading

You must configure the plugin
developed by Jhack

Lastest Reference


  • Marvell debuts passive optical network chips

    For a long time, I was wondering the decision of PMC buying Passive, a PON chip maker. Even though the Passive division did not bring in as much revenue as we expected, but it seems it’s the right acquisition after all. If Marvell and [...]


  • The engineering gap

    My experience agrees with the articles that many Indian engineers are not as good as they claim to be. But I don’t think a new standardize test will solve the problem. The test only would work until some PREP school cracked the marking [...]


  • The Evil That Apple Does

    If Apple has the monopoly market share like Microsoft, Apple would be an eviler company than Microsoft. A close software system kill innovation and progress. I support Google’s open software model.

    by Steven Cherry, January 28, [...]


  • Driven to distraction

    Mr. Pink is dead wrong. Intrinsic rewards and the pleasure gain from doing a job well only comes if the job is paid well. You will simply feel ripped off if you are not rewarded accordingly.

    Jan 14th 2010, The Economist
    Two and a half cheers for [...]


  • The return of the mainframe

    My first co-op job was writing software for IBM AS/400 mainframe. I wonder if mainframe gets back into fashion, is my mainframe programming skill still marketable.

    Jan 14th 2010, The Economist
    The mother of all computers no longer looks [...]


  • RSSArchive for Lastest Reference »

Google Adsense

All ad income will donate to St. Mary Catholic Church

景賢里

King Yin Lane

有七十年歷史﹐坐落在香港灣仔的景賢里﹐大慨是全港僅餘少數具中國特色紅牆綠瓦的建築物。其歷史值價相信沒有任何爭議﹐早應例入法定古蹟受到保護。在上星期業主忽然動工清拆瓦頂彫花﹐相信是趕在建築物列為古蹟前重建﹐以免四億地價見財花水。保育人士固然強烈遣責﹐政府也從善如流把景賢里例為臨時古蹟﹐勒令清拆工程馬上停止進行﹐可惜為事已晚景賢里受到無可挽救的摧殘。

報章上的評論大部份都是批評政府﹐說香港欠缺完善的古蹟保護政策﹐沒有古蹟業主商討換地賠償的機制。大伙兒一起捧打落水狗﹐打過亦不樂乎﹐反正政府這次難逃其責。有少部份評論批評業主﹐說他貪取利益無視歷史意義。不過四億不是少數目﹐在尊重產權的香港﹐總不能叫業主血本無歸。在古蹟賠償機制不清楚的情況下﹐業主先下手為強清拆建築物﹐保障自己的地產投資也是無可厚非。蘋果日報的薪果批則批評保育人士﹐認為保育團體要求激烈﹐什麼舊建築物都不能拆﹐業主被迫在被保育份子看上前清拆。陶傑撰文駁斥﹐左一句中國小農思維﹐右一句與爭取民主扯上關係﹐說得好不過癮。其實蘋果批文中的推論也是事實﹐在外國古蹟保護法例完善的地方﹐很多業主會趕在古蹟死期前重建樓宇﹐好增加地產投資的回報。蘋果批只不過用錯了元兇二字﹐誤把清拆的責任加在保育份子身上。用經濟誘因去解釋﹐業主提早清拆舊建築物﹐是加強古蹟保護法例的必然結果。

在清拆事件發生前﹐ 我從來沒有聽過香港有這橦歷史建築物。算是我不學無術﹐不過相信也沒有多少香港市民聽過。也許來香港的外國遊客﹐比我們更熟悉景賢里這個名字﹐畢竟好歹也是個旅遊景點。我寫這篇文章時心想﹐既然景賢里這麼具歷史價值﹐網上必定有很多相關資料﹐可以參考了解它的歷史﹐欣賞它的優美建築吧。很可惜我什麼也找不到﹐除了維基上短短數百字的簡介﹐以及那一千零一張遣照。其他所有資料也是新近的評論﹐照片則只有清拆後的頹垣敗瓦。保育份子早前天星皇后事件中﹐在那兩件次貨古蹟身上﹐前後浪費了不知多少個月的時間。若果他們真的是有心搞保育工作﹐就不應該柴娃娃地聚在碼頭示威﹐政府偷懶不做古蹟評估﹐難道民間保育團體就不可以做嗎﹖若果保育人士懂分輕重緩急﹐不把精神花在沒有保留價值的偽古蹟上﹐把時間放在記錄香港貨直價實的古蹟上﹐至少我們不會連景賢里的照片也沒有得看了。保育歷史固然重要﹐但揀選適合保育的對象更加重要﹐香港總不能什麼也不許拆吧。

Related posts

1 comment to 景賢里

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <pre lang="" line="" escaped="">