HKIUD’s views on Conservation of Heritage Buildings

1.   Further to our paper in April 2015 on the Central Market Revitalisation Project, in which we urged Government to step up its effort to take up or to back up URA’s role in conservation as a social responsibility, we wish to express our concern on another lose-lose situation of conservation of heritage buildings due to the abyss prevalent between different sectors of the community.

2.   The case in question is the proposed boutique hotel development at 27, Lugard Road at the Peak. The building was built in 1916 and is classified as a Grade II historic building. It involved mainly the conversion of the building through preservation and renovation. After the scale of the proposal has been reduced substantially, e.g. the number of hotel rooms was reduced from 17 to 12 and the number of carparking spaces from 5 to 2, on 17 April 2015, the application was approved by the Metro Planning Committee of TPB subject to 10 approval conditions.

3.   There would be no restaurant, no catering and laundry facilities, while a public education centre would be provided in the development. However, more than 2400 objections were received. The objections focused on the potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles since Lugard Road is a popular and very narrow hiking trail. The planning approval conditions thus also banned vehicular access via Lugard Road for transporting hotel guests to only between 9 am to 7 pm.

4.    After obtaining the conditional planning approval, the proponent has eventually abandoned his proposal because he found that the conditions were so restrictive that the project just became unviable.

5.    As professionals closely involved with heritage and conservation issues, we are most disappointed to see the loss of the opportunity, and to see that valuable historic and heritage buildings keep vanishing through haphazard redevelopment or through dilapidation.  Adapted reuse is in fact the most effective and practical approach to protect and preserve heritage buildings. Our city of variety and vibrancy should have capacity for heritage buildings to co-exist amidst the acclaimed mixed and rich context. They should rightly deserve a niche in our urban setting, especially as Hong Kong’s uniqueness arose from the cross fertilisation of the cultures of the east and the west. Without them, Hong Kong would be just like any other bland and featureless place.

6.    Whilst Lugard Road was first built to provide access for the buildings along the Road, as far as the Road is a “public” road, we should respect the right of access for both the general public as well as that of the building owners when trying to find a balance. This time, under the immense pressure of the group of particular interest, the MPC has made a decision with highly inflexible and restrictive conditions, and as such, the planning permission has effectively sentenced the proposed conservation initiative to death. HKIUD regrets the general lack of embracing attitude in the community, whereby the old and the new, the active and the tranquil can live side by side, to share use our urban spaces

7.     What is more, although in Hong Kong we do have an assessment mechanism through the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance and the Antiquities Advisory Board, and even a number of pilot schemes of private sector participation in revitalising certain historic buildings – mainly those in Government ownership, when it comes to private properties, we have perhaps already lost too many valuable opportunities in the past decade. This sort of conflicting views would likely remain and could possibly become political issues any moment in the years to come. Whereas substantive land interests are being involved vis-à-vis the rights of private property ownership, there is no teeth in the policy of heritage conservation.  As long as conservation policy is unsupported by suitable compensation measures, we can only expect continual conflicts and lose-lose cases round the corner. To break the spell, we need positive intervention instead of leaving entirely to the market.  We are hopeful that the private owners could help us to conserve the historic buildings and promote tourism and civic education and so on, they could only do so without having to over develop the site if Government would also underwrite a proper share of the contribution.

8.    The above two cases taken together reveal the weakness in our current conservation efforts.  Conservation as a public interest lies very much at the mercy of property market forces and the ability to balance the interests of the wider public against groups with particular interests and somehow the two are inter-related. We strongly believe that it is necessary to revamp our conservation policies as a matter of priority and to build community consensus on the way forward. Suitable resources should be allocated towards this valuable cause, including public education, training of skills in building conservation and archaeology, and last but not least, for suitably compensating for the rights of the private property owners concerned, with land exchanges as one of the possible forms of compensation as well. 

9.     As urban designers, we appreciate and treasure the beauty of historic buildings and those of special architectural merits. We understand that where it is necessary to inject new uses to make the projects sustainable, there are limits to prevent over development and undue impacts on the surrounding environment. We can help to promote the value and sense of conservation in the community to help build a consensus, especially if we could be involved in an early planning and strategy formulation stages. Our multiple skills can help to promote these to happen. Nevertheless, we would still need Government to take the lead to address the issues of private property ownership and their rights.

.

The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design

2 July 2015