Public vs private development of waterfronts

Government is giving public waterfront promenades in Kai Tak to the developers, giving up public rights to save money. There is no innovation - the land tender agreements specify ever detail, including the tiles and seats to use.

Public vs private development of waterfronts

In Hong Kong our waterfronts are mostly government land. Few private lots include the shore and seabed. Wharves, sawmills and shipyards had the harbour in front reclaimed or they surrendered their marine lot in return for new development rights with a condition that there would be a public waterfront.

But this trend is at risk of a reversal: the government is handing public waterfront land to private enterprises for enhancement, management and operation. Proponents explain that this will lead to innovation and more creative designs. The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) is deemed too slow in adopting variety and commercial activities such dining facilities by hiding behind the terms of the Pleasure Grounds Regulation Ordinance.

The risk of introducing private operators’ control over public space can’t always be foreseen. Public-private-partnerships (PPPs) such as tunnels demonstrated that when circumstances change you find that you lack flexibility to vary the terms - in this example, the fees to better manage traffic. Similarly ever since the Avenue of Stars was handed to New World in 2004, both sides found themselves struggling with the terms fixed for 20 years.

Despite this, large stretches along the Kai Tak runway have been handed over to developers who buy adjacent sites. The government seeks to reduce the cost of design and management rather than innovation, with government’s design guidelines for developers to follow. While detailed agreements have yet to be disclosed (see footnote), it appears that while it has a right to take back the land, the Development Bureau did not include a regular review of the performance and terms of operations.

We did better with the event space and ferris wheel in Central, and the future water sports centre in the Wan Chai Basin. While there are limitations with the instrument, Short- Term Tenancy (STT) agreements by the Lands Department, we can regularly adjust for what does and does not work. Important though is that government must invest in the expensive infrastructure – water, drainage, sewage, power, toilets and marine infrastructure (breakwater, landing steps, pontoons) as short term operators can never earn such costs back.

Government is now sounding out the private sector for developing the large Urban Park on the Hung Hom waterfront. If they seek to transfer the cost, we will end up with a tourism attraction the local community will hate. If the government seeks to find innovative ideas for its investment, the public will win. Key is that the policy to hand over waterfronts to private sectors must be deliberated with the community, constructively and in an open manner. 

Footnote: Since submission of this article we learned that land lease details of unsold waterfront sites at Kai Tak can be found at Lands Department’s land sales list. The lease conditions corroborate our concerns.

(Article published in Southside Magazine - May 2019 issue)

私營海濱 — 穩輸的裹足保守

在世界某一角，市民能無拘束盡享海岸線的優美，這種得來不易的權力，背後是前人們多年來不斷與擁有沙灘的地主奮鬥的結果。香港大部份的海濱用地都是政府用地，其餘一些如碼頭、工廠等私人用地，要不隨着時間被填海土地包圍，要不就以保留公眾海濱為前題下，將土地換成新發展權。

但這種做法到近期出現危機，政府正計劃將公眾海濱交予私人發展商，以改善營運及管理。

康文署一直被咎病行動緩慢，躲在遊樂場地規例背後，不願接受如餐飲設施等各種多元化商業活動的申請。因此，支持一方認為這做法能帶來創新及創意設計。

讓私營機構管理公共空間的隱憂往往不能預計，公私營合作項目已向我們展示它在一些情況下會造成諸多制肘，單是調整隧道費一事，這問題已顯然易見。同樣情況亦見於星光大道，政府2004年將大道交給新世界管理後，官商兩方都苦苦困於20年的合約年期當中。

儘管如此，啟德跑道兩旁大片土地仍落入買下鄰近土地的發展商口袋中，政府為減省開支及管理成本而放棄創新，發展商從而跟從政府保守的設計指引。詳細的協議尚未公開，但看來即使政府保有回購土地的權力，發展局也沒有加入條款要求定期檢討管理效能及模式。

中環海濱用地及摩天輪的土地和未來於灣仔貨物裝卸區的水上活動中心，是近期較為成功的例子。地政總署批出的短期租約有其局限，但我們卻可定期調整，確保土地用途如預期實現。其中重點之一是政府做好昂貴的基礎設施（如水、渠務、電力、洗手間，以及海岸設施如防波堤、登岸台階及浮台等），因為短期租約營運商絕對無法在短時間內於這些基建上回本。

政府現正試探私人企業營運紅磡海濱公園的口風。如政府最終決定轉嫁成本，則會出現一個居民討厭的旅遊設施；如政府決定引入創新設計，則公眾會成最大贏家。決定去向的關鍵是政府必須在將土地交予私人機構前，以開放、具建設性的態度，讓公眾充份參與過程並表達意見。

(立場新聞2019年5月2日連結: 私營海濱 — 穩輸的裹足保守)