“Reassembly of Queen’s Pier” Public Engagement (Survey on the Architectural Design) - May 2016
2016-05-11 00:00

The HKIUD Public Affairs Committee’s Comments on the “Reassembly of Queen’s Pier” Public Engagement (Survey on the Architectural Design) – May 2016

1.The Questionnaire Survey put forth 3 Design Options and asked the public which one they prefer. The questions focused mainly on the alternative roof designs /alterations to the existing Piers 9 and 10, and also on the ways to handle the original side landing

2.As stated in the Background in the PE web-site, the task of the reassembly is to “make the reassembled QP become a public open space for leisure and various activities, adding vibrancy to the harbourfront; the provision of additional berthing space to allow the public to use QP as a pier and to provide an additional water-land connection point; and that the reassembled QP would provide a new vantage point for the public to enjoy the view of the Victoria Harbour.”  We would thus examine the matter in the light of these more fundamental considerations rather than on the technical details of the roof lineWe would not choose any one of Options A, B or C for the roof designs, nor Options I, II or III for the landing steps since neither one could clearly excel the others in fulfilling the more important objectives.

3.Through the Urban Design Study (UDS) in 2007-2009 Government has decided to reassemble the QP to the waterfront at a location between Piers 9 and 10. Although some people may still advocate relocating QP to the original location, it is not the subject of today’s PE. Relocating to its original location could not reinstate the function of QP as a pier. The axis from City Hall through QP directly to the waterfront would also cease to exist, after being traversed by Lung Wo Road. Thus, it would be more useful to focus on how, apart from conserving the authentic building elements, more social value and public benefits could be derived through the reassembly of QP, as well as how much the above mentioned objectives could be achieved.

4.Apart from judging on the articulation of the building and spaces, we would commend a conservation project if it would be sustainable and has significant social values. Among the tasks required from the project, no doubt it can function as a pier by abutting directly on the seawall. However, given the limitation of the water surface between the two existing piers, the net gain would in reality only be one set of additional landing steps in the whole group. Since QP cannot project into the Harbour due to restrictions of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the side landing steps would be unable to function, and only in an ideal situation one could at the most have all the 3 front sets of landing steps reactivated to work. This is certainly an inherent disadvantage, but it should not diminish QP’s value as a popular place for rendezvous where people meet and socialize when making use of QP itself or Piers 9 or 10, or just for leisure purposes, or simply for getting close to the waterfront and to enjoy the view of the Victoria Harbour. As urban designers, we look for such added values and attributes rather than just to seek to align the rooflines at great constructionThe total experience is sometimes more important than geometric perfection. It would also be useful to acknowledge that in design work, the value of the whole could, if properly designed, be more than the sum of their parts.

5.In observing conservation principles there are limitations to how the reassembly project could add vibrancy to the harbour-front. Additional elements cannot be added, so as not to destroy the integrity and quality of the authentic design. To make good use of the potential of QP to provide greater support to users and their activities, apart from relying on the reinstated small food stall inside the pier, the designer should give due consideration to how the spaces in the pier may integrate with the external spaces as a whole. One of the Harbour Planning Guidelines states that : “Opportunities should be sought to connect open space in the inland to the harbour-front, so as to increase visual and physical permeability and help create sustainable network of linked open spaces.” It also rightly states that “Harbourfront open spaces should be planned to integrate with adjacent waterfront promenades, ferry piers /landing steps and supporting retail /dining facilities to create a focal point and informal public gathering place for both local resident and tourists or for hosting cultural and social events.…” and to accommodate “such leisure facilities as strolling, and jogging, pedestrian circulation, street furniture, tree planting and landscaping …”  In view of the high permeability and the relatively simple function as a waiting area, the potential of the reassembled QP lies with the space in the pier, particularly if that space would be linked to the whole open space system, as people would remember the place more for its value through the association with their social life than the more remote roof shape. Unfortunately, in this Questionnaire Survey exercise, no detailed design proposals have been given about the use of the space at all. The external spaces are shown as empty spaces and appear to be just hard paving materials. We would welcome another occasion of engagement for the design of the public space system.

6.The Harbour Planning Guidelines about landscaping actually stated that : ”hard surface should be reduced.. ..  and sunshades and vegetation should be emphasized in order to improve the microclimate and provide thermal comfort. ..provision of adequate, comfortable shaded areas for sitting out is encouraged, including benches, or seating integrated into the seawall design. ..”  The present proposal is clearly inadequate in breadth and depth.

7.Another important Harbour Planning Principle to observe is the need to : “increase visual and physical permeability” between the waterfront and the inlandOption B is however to the contrary. The very solid looking “portals” meant to shield the different roof forms from sight would visually block the views of Victoria Harbour and physically block the otherwise free pedestrian flow and air flow from one pier to the other via the space in QP.

8.The proposal of providing glass covers or elevated glass seatings over the landlocked and defunct side landing steps appears to be more a gimmick than a prudent conservation measure. If preserving them is just for people to see through a pane of glass on the ground, this is superfluous since there are real and functional steps at the waterfront side. The options of having raised structures at these locations would block the pedestrian flows substantially since these landing steps are quite large in size. It would be better to give more thought to the design of the public spaces around QP and the associated landscaping, to make these spaces more user friendly and interesting.

9.The presentation materials have mainly shown us aerial views of the building group. People would however be more concerned and sensitive to views from a ground level or sometimes from a footbridge height. Besides, it would also be essential to be able to understand how things look like from the Harbour and from Kowloon side. Unfortunately again no such information isRegarding the major open spaces in such an important location at the waterfront, as urban designers, we wish to emphasise that opportunity should be taken to “do the right thing” in proper place-making, instead of “doing the thing right” in making the rooflines look all alike by engineering means.

10.The reassembly is no doubt not an easy task since it has to cater for different objectives and to work within constraints. The piers were built in different ages and the building technology was definitely different. However, we should try to appreciate their commonality and inherent qualities of being piers. It is unnecessary to over-kill the technical details to try to iron out all the differences. As the Chinese saying 和而不同by Confucius goes, one should appreciate the beauty of the complementarity of these buildings standing close to each other. They are quite compatible in terms of scales, and if they would be providing similar and modern day services in an overall harmonious setting and sustainable context, the differences could perhaps be accepted or should be tackled with only minimalOne possible way to do more with less could be by the use of information technology. For example, since most people use smart phones these days, if a QR code is provided on the wall in a non-intrusive way, one could use a smart phone to scan that QR code and easily access a relevant web-site interactively to find out the history and other information about Queen’s Pier.  This would probably add more meaning to the reassembly than to juggle with the roofs and the landing steps.

 

Public Affairs Committee of

The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design

11 May 2016

 
上一页