The HKIUD Public Affairs Committee’s views on the "Topside Development at Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities (BCF) island of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) ” - Community Engagement

1. There are several fundamental concerns about the viability of the proposed development compared to the opportunities as portrayed in the Community Engagement Digest. Before we comment on these, we would however like to focus on the urban design and planning issues first.
2. The island is located at a most strategic location and is thus an important gateway to Hong Kong. The scale of development is also huge, with GFA at 300,000 sq.m up to 500,000 sq.m. The topside development will thus have significant visual impacts and should deserve an iconic and representative architecture besides its practical and functional considerations. We suggest that design competitions should be conducted to look for creative and the most suitable architectural design.
3. In terms of the whole island, besides the main structure itself, there may also be large areas occupied by complex networks of link roads and other transport relatedThus, there also needs to be comprehensive landscape master planning to mitigate the possible visual and environmental impacts and to improve the local micro-climatic conditions. 
4. It is not clear whether some external areas on the island would be accessible by the public after taking into account necessary security considerations. Otherwise, the water edge could be an asset and become an attraction and good recreational outlet. It may deserve more detailed landscape planning, to explore the feasibility of a green and ecological shoreline.
5. The design concept emphasized the place’s role as a “bridgehead” in the light of the future development of Lantau and theWhilst we concur with the concept of “Synergy with the Existing and Planned Assets of Lantau”, the Study objective has also emphasized the role of the place as a “springboard”. We wish to caution that “bridgehead” should not be taken literally as to turning the place just into a “springboard” to facilitate the passing of people, goods and information. “Place-making” should also be adopted as one of the design principles, to provide identity and a meaning as well as a suitable environment and facilities for people to stay, work and enjoy.
6. This would also converge with the need, from a viability angle, for means to encourage the visitors to come back from time to time and to stay longer.
7. The initial themes of “The World Converging” and “Experiencing Hong Kong and the World” are fine, but the questions are : Why would visitors not go to see the local and indigenous culture in town e.g. Temple Street hawker markets, or the Tsz Tongs in the NT directly instead of exhibits mimicked into some exhibition halls here ? For the local people, the time and transport costs for coming to the BCF site may be a deterrent factor if the innovative technologies and life style trends and products could be seen in nearer places in town?  Transport costs may be more discouraging for “Family oriented”It is difficult to envisage frequent visits and re-visits, particularly on weekdays.
8. For the local startup artists and workers, they would probably prefer to be located near to the urban area to be near to the clients they serve or to their family support in town. Besides, comparison may be needed between venues here and other venues such as PMQ.
9. In general, we concur with the idea of the Synergy with Tung Chung. However, convenient and affordable access is important. The Cruise Terminal case is a relevant example.
10. Last but not least, we would highly encourage the Study to explore into the concept of Smart City and the use of more green building technologies.

Public Affairs Committee of

The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design

18  September 2015