Position Paper on Pilot Study on Underground Space Development in Selected Strategic Urban Areas – Stage 1 Public Engagement

1.    In a nutshell, the proposals are apparently ineffective in helping the ground level pedestrian environment, nor are there adequate connections with the adjoining area and community. This opinion does not only refer to physical connections, but also to the context or functional and cultural relationship with the area. We are not against any initiatives to make more use of underground spaces, but it should be noted that underground uses may not be entirely environmentally friendly compared to other forms of development because of the need for artificial lighting and ventilation. The merits of each case need to be demonstrated before we would be convinced. When a proven cause and need are established we could then work together with other professionals to work out the best possible designs.

2.    Whilst underground streets are technically feasible, we have to ask whether it is the means or is it the end per se. The subject Study appears to be solution-based, rather than problem-based, and as such is narrow and arguably biased. One of the Goals of the Study as stated was: “to enhance Underground Connectivity to Alleviate Street Level Congestion and Provide Comfortable & All-weather Walking Environment”. Thus, one would expect that the main justification for building underground should be adding connectivity where it is currently lacking and difficult to solve at the street level, and not adding more commercial spaces in already over-busy areas. We would also expect to see in the chosen areas corresponding street level pedestrian environment improvement and vehicular traffic control measures. These are however totally lacking in the present Consultation document, apart from some symbolic lines and arrows indicative of directions of desired links.

3.      The most obvious one is the Wan Chai case. Three huge “Potential Key Underground Pedestrian Linkage” lines were shown linking Southorn Playground to the West, the North and to the East, whilst the proposal is only a short subway across the junction of Hennessy Road and Luard Road, while the underground development proposed is described ambiguously as “a mix of activities e.g. retail, food & beverage, community, leisure and cultural, etc.” and a “Re-planning of the Refuse Collection Point”. Likewise in Wan Chai, the proposed north-south underground link seems redundant as it runs parallel to the existing footbridge along O’Brien Road, just one block to the east, not to mention that Luard Road is quite easily walkable on the street level. If the space underneath Southorn Playground is to be developed for certain community facilities, it may be relevant to consider the provision of sports and recreation facilities, which are compatible with the nature of the existing sports ground above.

4.      On page 35, the north-south link at Fleming Road is said to be an “Existing Congested Pedestrian Corridor”. Why are there no proposals of any underground links linking Wan Chai Station with the SCL Exhibition Station and even further north to reach the harbour front ? The plan also shows a huge east-west “Planned Elevated Walkway” over Gloucester Road. It is likely to cause great visual impact on this major corridor. These walkway systems should not be taken in isolation in different public engagement exercises. The whole pedestrian network including above ground, street level and underground spaces and how they join together, should be presented as a whole comprehensively.

5.      Perhaps it is in light of the difficulty of building under existing buildings and streets, the proposed solutions focused on building under existing public parks and playgrounds. Doing so would severely compromise the cost-benefit equation in terms of public benefit as they will cause severe disruption during construction, removal of trees and would compromise the quality of the parks when the project is completed.

6.       In the Causeway Bay case, firstly, the status of the proposed MTR North Island Line need to defined, in particular whether there would be a station in the Park, as it was only vaguely mentioned in passing in consultation meetings and is not shown in the drawings in the consultation pamphlet. It is difficult to see why there should be a station in this location unless it is for transfer between NIL and either the Tin Hau or CWB station of the present Island Line. It would be of interest to know whether the proposed underground commercial use is intended to subsidise the MTR NIL and future station development. Without these possible causes, there is little justification to propose a walkway under the Park to link up Tin Hau and CWB stations instead of allowing people to take a leisurely walk in the Park. In a vacuum of such context, it is difficult to see whether it is of due public benefit to add more commercial space (in a disruptive an expensive way) under the lawn of the Park, and bringing more traffic to the vicinity of Gloucester Road. Besides, are such commercial uses geared towards serving local needs or more for tourism ? If tourism is the prime reason, then the Study should also address the provision of other relevant facilities including parking for tourist coaches. If however, underground spaces of the Park must be provided, the relationship with the community on the three respective sides may be relevant for consideration – viz. cultural and sports uses to the south, harbour related uses to the north and lastly, commercial and F&B on the west side.

7.     On the other hand, it is disappointing that the main connectivity problem – north-south link across Hennessey Road has not even been mentioned, while the proposed “solution” under the Park seems to be chasing a non-existent problem. There is also nothing said about connection to the future development at Caroline Hill, which is only shown as a blank area on page 27, but its type and magnitude are not unveiled.  

8.     There are some alfresco dining /cafes outside Lee Gardens I –perhaps on private land and at Sunning Court – before it is being redeveloped. It would be useful if the Study could also take account of such opportunities and suggest how upon redevelopment projects should set back and provide more spaces for pedestrians and greening at street level besides making possible allowance for connections to future underground streets where appropriate.

9.      Compared to the Victoria Park case, the provision of commercial uses under Kowloon Park appears to have stronger justifications as TST is one vast commercial district, and it is a pity that at present it is difficult to cross Nathan Road and integrate TST East and TST West in a pedestrian friendly manner. However, the proposal has not shown sufficient consideration as to how to link up TST West and TST East across Nathan Road. Simply adding more commercial uses under the Kowloon Park would attract more vehicles to the adjacent streets, with knock on effect on Peking Road, etc. In this case, the context is the whole TST District. As regards provision of community facilities, the intention is complimented, but it is not clear how the people in Yau Ma Tei could easily cross the busy Austin Road and Jordan Road to get there.

10.    However, apart from a concern about possible disturbance to a lot of mature trees in the Park, it should be pointed out that the prime function of the Park should be a place for people to relax and enjoy and not mainly as a passage for people to pass through. The emphasis of at grade or above ground passages through the Park should be avoided as far as possible. Where multi-level pedestrian links are proposed, it would be essential to avoid the Old and Valuable Trees as well as other mature trees, and in terms of the form of design, it may be useful to make certain parts in the form of sunken gardens, open to the sky and provide for variety of visual interest and character, to make the visit to the area more interesting.

Public Affairs Committee of

The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design

February 2017