Name: | Ho, S. H. (何尚衡) (Alfred) |
Course: | New Urban Questions |
Assignment: | Academic Essay |
Studio: | Urban Asymmetry (Amsterdam), Delft School of Design, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology |
Graduation Track: | Architecture |
Submission to: | Gregory Bracken |
Date: | 17-12-2010 |
Abstract
This essay is about the contradiction and conflicts between the production of the public spaces by the government and private enterprises and their use by the citizens in Hong Kong. Public space is an excellent realm to understand the land use, spatial structure, culture and social life of the citizens of a city, although its definition varies across different territories. I shall prove that there have been mismatches between the production and the use of the public spaces in Hong Kong, which later turned into the contradiction and conflicts, triggered by several significant events. Some of these problems can be solved by the government while some cannot.
By looking at one of the most controversial topics in the contemporary cities, we not only can understand the forming and usage of the public spaces in Hong Kong, one of the earliest and most developed cities in the Chinese societies, but also can foresee what problems could have emerged in other cities of China in the future, provided that many of these cities have been learning the mode of development from Hong Kong, and they have similar background of Chinese culture.
Introduction
For the Hong Kong Government, public space is almost equal to a park or a playground, judged from the open space it provides for the public, which does not require entrance fee and prerequisites. For the private enterprises, mostly real estate developers, public space is a by-product which can be used to exchange for higher plot ratio and more usable floor area for making profits. For the general public, these public spaces no longer cater to their public activities nor fulfill their expectations of public spaces. Most of the parks built by the government in the urban area have been scarcely visited and used by most of the people, and the ‘public spaces’ provided by the private enterprises turn out to be pseudo ones due to the fact that they are privately owned and managed by commercial parties. These mismatches of the provision and usage of the public spaces have been turned into social conflicts and urban questions in the last decade, triggered by several significant events which will be discussed below. These events are not single and individual cases but the accumulation of the long existing problems, maybe even the tip of the iceberg.
This essay will start the discussion by defining what public space means and does in the context of Hong Kong. Then we shall look into the key events triggering the contradiction and the conflicts of the public spaces, how these events went on in the society and what the government has done in response to them. Certain important concepts, like the statutory Open Space and Privately Owned Public Space, relating to the key events are introduced and explained in the essay, which can help us understand the intricate issues of public space better and deeper.
The Public Spaces in Hong Kong
The term ‘public space’ is never clearly defined in Hong Kong, as in other societies, due to the broad and vague concept of ‘public’ and ‘space’. People normally use the term to refer to any non-private space which is defined by its ownership protected by the rule of law in Hong Kong. Although the sovereignty of Hong Kong was returned from the United Kingdom to the People’s Republic of China on 1 July 1997, the socialist system of China would not be practiced in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong could keep its previous capitalist economic and political systems for 50 years, under the ‘One country, two systems’ (一國兩制) principle agreed by the two countries in the Sino-British Joint Declaration (中英聯合聲明), stipulated by the Hong Kong Basic Law (香港基本法). Therefore, the huge political change did not influence the regulations regarding the planning and the use of the public spaces. The universal standard constituting and expected in public space, for example the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly, can still be adopted in Hong Kong.
Before looking at the public spaces in Hong Kong, let us go through briefly what the term ‘public space’ means in the western societies and its related discussion. Who the public are and how open the public space is are the first and foremost questions we have to answer in finding out what public space means in one society. Benn and Gaus identify three dimensions of social organization – access, agency and interest – which constitute the dimensions of publicness and privateness.[1] Since the necessity of access is a key term in most of the definitions of public space, public spaces (and also public places) are public because anyone is entitled to be physically present in them.[2]
In order to focus on certain specific issues and phenomena related to public space, or to look from another point of view, different terms are sometimes employed for the discussion. For example, in Maarten Hajer and Arnold Reijndorp’s ‘In Search of New Public Domain’, ‘public domain’ is defined as the places where an exchange between different social groups is possible and also actually occurs.[3]; Manuel de Solà-Morales uses the term ‘collective space’ to refer to those meeting places in the city which, though privately owned, continue to form the scenes for various public activities such as shopping malls, sports stadiums, theme parks and grand cafés.[4]
The ambiguity of the term ‘public space’ originates from the complexity and the double interpretation of the society as both public and private, and the overlap and double meaning of the personal and impersonal relations when referring to the private and public.[5] The word ‘public’ usually refers to a large number of people who are conceptualized as society or as state. But a society may refer to different groups of people like the individuals and small groups in the realm of privacy versus the small firms and large corporations in the realm of the economy market.[6] This is one of the fundamental reasons resulting in the contradiction and conflicts which are going to be discussed below. Another source of ambiguity comes from the interpretation of the impersonal and the interpersonal realms under the public realm.[7] ‘Interpersonal, face-to-face social encounters are interpreted sometimes as private and other times as public, causing ambiguity in meaning.’[8]
In this essay, a simple, direct and fundamental definition of public space is used: pubic space is the space in which anyone is entitled to be physically present and is controlled by public authorities. Further descriptions and details, like the dimension of the agency and interest of the space, will be added if necessary in later discussion.
Now, let us go back to the public spaces in Hong Kong. The total area of Hong Kong is 1,104km2 of which 440km2 are country parks and special areas,[9] and the total population is around seven million. The public spaces and the urban amenities, mostly by the proximity of the urban areas, are provided as leisure services, and are developed and managed by the Leisure and Cultural Service Department (LCSD) (康樂及文化事務署) of the Hong Kong Government. They cover a total area of 2,343 hectares (23.43km2) which not only contain the public spaces composed of 1,504 parks (24 of them are the major ones) and 680 children’s playgrounds, but also the many urban amenities like stadia, swimming pools, beaches, tennis courts and so forth.[10] The country parks, though freely accessible for everyone, are not relevant in this study of public spaces because they are located outside the urban area, however close, and are usually for weekend activities like hiking and camping.
Although the notion of public space does not exist in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, the standards of open space based on a level of provision for each person are set out clearly in the documents, under the section 1 Recreational and Open Space of Chapter 4 Recreational, Open Space and Greening.[11] Open space can be seen as a substitute for public space when it comes to government’s planning and policy-making. Actually, most of the public spaces in the city belong to, and are developed and managed with reference to the classification of open space below. Open Space is ‘a statutory land use zone for the provision of open space and recreation facilities for the enjoyment of the general public’[12]. It is a term used interchangeably with recreation open space which means ‘the outdoor open-air space which is used principally for active and/or passive recreation use, developed either by the public or private sector, and is counted towards the open space standard of provision.’[13] For open space, there are two important concepts related to the involvement of the general public: Active Open Space referring to ‘recreation open space which contains outdoor recreation facilities, mainly for the core activities including games facilities’ and Passive Open Space referring to ‘recreation open space which is landscaped as parks, gardens, sitting-out areas, waterfront promenades, paved areas for informal games, children's playgrounds, jogging and fitness circuits etc., where people can enjoy the surroundings in a leisurely manner (games facilities are normally not provided)’.[14]
According to Section 1.8 Standards for Provision of Open Space, a minimum of 2m2 of open space should be provided for each person in the urban areas. This minimum amount of open space is composed of 1m2 of District Open Space and 1m2 of Local Open Space. For Regional Open Space, it is provided as a ‘bonus’ above the minimum standard. [Table 1] Hong Kong has a population of around seven million, so the open space required is 14km2 (14,000,000m2).
Table 1: Standards for Provision of Open Space[15]
Open Space Category | Provision Standard | Remarks |
Regional Open Space | No Standard | - 50% counts as District Open Space in the Metro Area |
District Open Space | 10 ha per 100,000 persons (i.e.1m2 / person) | - Subject to slope correction factor - Active/passive ratio is applied - Not applicable to industrial, industrial-office, business and commercial areas, rural villages and small residential developments in the rural areas |
Local Open Space | 10 ha per 100,000 persons (i.e.1m2 / person) | - Subject to slope correction factor - No active/passive ratio - Primary for passive use - In industrial, industrial-office, business and commercial areas, the standard is 5 ha per 100,000 workers (i.e. 0.5m2 per worker) |
The Contradiction in the Public Spaces
If we only judge by looking at the amount of public spaces (far less than 23.43km2) provided in the urban area (approximately 660km2) for seven million Hong Kong citizens with more than 20 million visitors per year, we can say the number of public spaces are not enough. Urban amenities are not counted as public spaces in this study because entrance fees and registration are usually required, and the activities and personal conduct expected inside are very specific. But strange enough, for outsiders, the scarce public spaces provided by the government are barely visited and used by the locals. We would find the elderly doing exercise in the parks in the morning, a few children playing in the playgrounds after going to schools, and the domestic helpers, mainly coming from Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, gathering in the public spaces or even any open urban spaces during weekends. But we would seldom see teenagers and office workers in the above public places, at least far less than their being in the shopping malls. It is quite contradictory that on one hand, people are blaming for not having enough public spaces in the city and on the other hand, most of the people are not using the existing ones.
The decline of public life, a common phenomenon happening in a lot of cities in the world, rooted in the formation of a new capitalist, secular, urban culture suggested by Richard Sennett in his book ‘The Fall of Public Man’,[16] may be a reason. The idea of space as derivative from motion, mostly the motion produced by private automobiles, has rendered the public space, especially the space of the urban street, meaningless. ‘The technology of modern motion replaces being in the street with a desire to erase the constraints of geography.’[17] In Hong Kong, it is the motion of the public transport like bus and mini-bus and the mass transit system like the underground railway system and the train instead of the motion of private automobile that make the public spaces detached from the lives of the people, because most of the people take public transport and mass transit system for commuting.
Another reason is the virtualization of public space. The social function of the public space has been displaced to the realm of the mass media and has sprawled to the global networks of communication technologies like mobile phones and the Internet.[18] The intimate association and relationship between a community and a place is largely lost. ‘Social relationships were uncoupled from physical proximity.’[19]
The hot and humid climate and the poor air quality of the outdoor environment are also reasons for the low frequency of use of the open public spaces. This is especially true during summer when people prefer staying in indoor environment with air-conditioning system rather than exposing themselves under the burning sunlight and suffocating air. People would look for shopping malls which are usually connected to housing estates, offices and most of the time mass transit system, after getting off from the public transport.
The above reasons are the global, social and environmental backgrounds for the low usage of the public spaces in Hong Kong. A reason about the agency of the public spaces which accounts for the contradiction of not having enough public spaces and at the same time not many people are using the existing ones is related to the development and management of the Leisure and Cultural Service Department. We can already get some clues from the management structure and hierarchy of the department. First, there is no official definition of public space, which means the society can never have a direct and focus discussion to which the government can respond and make changes within its legislative and executive framework. Now, the commonly recognized public spaces composed of parks and playgrounds are just provided as leisure services by the LCSD, and are treated as recreational facilities, managed together with the pragmatic and functional sports facilities. The government is seeing the public space as a kind of recreational resources only, almost commodities, rather than a place with social exchange, communication and spatial function. Second, the design of the public spaces is driven by their manageability, not from the point of view of the neighbourhood and the potential users. This is why the pocket parks in different districts of Hong Kong are more or less the same – the similar planters clad in similar tiles, the similar pavilions and outdoor furniture are planned and built regardless of the site context. [Figure 1] The government does not know and understand what kind of space is needed and appropriate in the society.
Besides the similarities in physical spaces for the convenience and ease of planning and construction, most of the public spaces are imposed with a large number of rules: do not step on the grass, no cycling, no skateboarding, no dogs or other pets allowed, no paddling near the water features, to name but a few. Such rules are made from a bureaucratic point of view that the government does not want to take any responsibility of any unexpected event or accident happened in the public spaces. The public spaces are not really ‘free’, and dissuade people from using them from the design to their management.
Figure 1: A pocket park next to an electricity substation and a funeral parlor in Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong in July 2009
The Conflicts in the Privately Owned Public Spaces
As mention briefly above, the social life and activities have been shifted from the traditional public spaces provided by the government to the privately owned public spaces like shopping malls, the squares and parks around the private properties which are open for the public but owned and managed by the private enterprises. There was no problem of these kinds of privatized public spaces until the mass media discovered that some public spaces had been ‘illegally’ privatized and used for commercial activities. Some private enterprises had been restraining the public from using these spaces and at the same time making great profits from the spaces. A series of social events and debates on the ownership, the management and the rights of usage of the public spaces in Hong Kong then followed.
Privately Owned Public Space (POPS) with regulatory standards was first invented in New York City of the United States of America in 1961. It is ‘located on private property yet, but unlike zoning’s yards, court, and other open spaces, physically accessible to the public-at-large’.[20] The underlying rationale of the novel idea was to bring more light and air into streets surrounded by tall buildings as well as to create more usable open space.[21] The way to animate the private sectors to do so was to establish a bonus device to encourage the setting back of buildings from the street line, inspired by the open area at the ground level of the Seagram Building designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.[22] The legal framework interprets POPS in two parts: ‘Privately Owned’ and ‘Public Space’. ‘Privately owned refers to the legal status of the land and/or building on or in which the public space is located. … Owners would continue to control overall access and use of their private property, including the right to exclude the public, and the public as a whole could not secure rights of access and use without the owner’s express permission.’[23] ‘Public Space’ of POPS means ‘a physical place located on private property to which the owner has granted legally binding rights of access and use to members of the public, most often in return for something of value from the City to the owner.’[24] It is not public property because it is not owned by the city on behalf of the people it represents. Nor is it is a privately owned property, like a department store, a museum and a restaurant, devoted to public access and use. It could be thought of as an easement held by the public on the owner’s property whose extent is defined by the Zoning Resolution of New York City and by implementing legal actions.[25]
The concept of Privately Owned Public Space was adopted in Hong Kong for similar purposes. The relevant policy was set up in the 1980s to balance the interests between the developers and the public, when the power was shifting to the corporations during the rapid economic growth. Corporations are encouraged to take up their social responsibility to contribute to the city development. At that time, through establishing the policy, the British Government benefited from developing a colonial city with the assistance from developers.[26] Bonus floor area will be given to the land owner as a return of provision of public space to the city. The owner can build higher buildings with larger floor area by freeing up spaces for public use of which they have the responsibility to maintain and manage.[27]
The Case of Times Square
The conflicts and controversy all started with the case of Times Square (時代廣場) in Causeway Bay (銅鑼灣) on Hong Kong Island. In the end of February in 2008, a radio programme called ‘On a Clear Day’ (在晴朗的一天出發) of the Commercial Radio Hong Kong (香港商業電台) disclosed that Times Square had long been privatized ‘illegally’ by The Wharf (Holdings) Limited. Several callers to the programme complained that the security guards in Times Square prevented them from sitting or remaining in the public area.[28] Under the Deeds of Dedication that the company signed with the Government, 3,010m2 of the ground floor of the Times Square development was set aside for public access. The proprietor of the square should provide open space for three purposes - as a pedestrian access, a passive amenities activity area, and a venue for exhibitions, according to the former director of the Buildings Department Hau-wai Cheung.[29] By providing the 3,010m2 plaza and street widening of approximately 1400m2, the owner of the development could get a bonus allowable floor area of 120,000m2, around 5 storeys, as return.[30] Times Square general manager Leng Yen-thean denied in the same radio programme that the management had ever instructed security guards to move people out of the open area. She thought some of the security guards were perhaps ‘overzealous’.
Another accusation to the company was about the unauthorized profits it had raked in from charging rent for the use of the public space. From July 2003 to March 2005, a section of the open area of Times Square was leased to Starbucks Coffee,[31] which is in violation of the Deeds of Dedication that the coffee shop is not an exhibition and the proprietor of Times Square is only entitled to recover utility costs.[32] Leng did not give any reply to how the company handled the rental fees received from the commercial exhibitions held in the public area, when questioned by the hosts of the radio programme.[33] In a statement, Times Square disputed the accusation of leasing a corner of the piazza to the coffee shop for unauthorized profits was just an ‘unintentional oversight’ which was quickly corrected. It said the company has complied with the terms of the Deed of Dedication and the open piazza of the Times Square development is a private property although it is designated for public use. It argued by pointing out that the Town Planning Board in 2001 did not change the use of the piazza into a public park and the deed has given the company the right to organize exhibitions and charge fees to cover the costs.[34] The government and charities could use the area for free though.[35]
In the Legislative Council of Hong Kong meeting on 5 March 2008, the Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said the government would make public the entire list of 156 public use facilities involving private developers by the end of March. Lam stressed that not all the listed areas were for recreational use - only 33 of them, including Times Square, are with recreational spaces. The other common facilities for public use include pedestrian flyovers, pedestrian access and traffic access for public use. She said there were a total of 60 areas which came under the Deed of Dedication for public use. All 18 district councils of Hong Kong would be notified for the issue and the government would instruct the private property owners to show clear notices to the public for the use of the controversial spaces.[36]
On 18 June 2008, Times Square was sued by the government to recover the unauthorized profits from charging rent for the use of public space. The High Court writ filed against Times Square Ltd. and its parent company Wharf Group revealed that Times Square Ltd. charged between HKD 28,000 and HKD 40,000 per day from Monday to Thursday, and HKD 100,000 to HKD 124,000 per day on Fridays, weekends and public holidays for renting parts of the piazza. The rates were believed to be in violation of the Deed of Dedication which stipulates that the operator of Times Square is only entitled to recover utility costs. The company saw the charge as ‘differences in legal interpretation of the related terms and clauses in the deed of dedication concerning charges to third parties for holding exhibitions and events at the ground floor piazza’, and they believed they had not charged more than what was allowed in the deed.[37]
The case is still ongoing and in legal process.
Figure 2: A view of the piazza of Times Square in the evening in July 2009
The Case of Metro Harbour View
After the case of Times Square, the mass media and the society continued to inspect and review the dubious public spaces in the city. Metro Harbour View (港灣豪庭) is another contentious case regarding the ownership and the rights of usage of the public spaces in private properties. Metro Harbour View is a private housing estate in Tai Kok Tsui (大角咀) in Kowloon, jointly developed by Henderson Land Developmen and Hong Kong Ferry (Holdings) Company Limited in 2003. Before the estate was built, the lot was originally zoned ‘Comprehensive Development Area’ or ‘Government, Institution or Community’. In order to pursued it as a residential development, the developers applied for approval from the Town Planning Board (城市規劃委員會), under the Town Planning Ordinance. Certain community facilities fulfilling the district needs had to be provided in the proposed development, as a condition of the planning permission, which would be included in the land lease. The developers of Metro Harbour View were required to construct and maintain public open space of not less than 9,800m2 within the lot and to keep it open for public use at such hours as the Director of Lands might require, under the conditions for the land exchange approval.[38] Separately, on another site adjoining Metro Harbour View, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department had planned to provide recreational facilities so as to alleviate the shortfall of public open spaces and facilities in Tai Kwok Tsui and the West Kowloon Reclamation Area.[39]
After the Development Bureau (發展局) compiled and revealed the information of 152 public open spaces in private developments to increase transparency and accountability in planning and land matters on 28 March 2008,[40] in response to the Times Square case, some households of Metro Harbour View discovered that the podium garden of their estate was not private space and thus had to be shared with the public, which they were not informed by the developers when purchasing the residential units.[41] They felt like being deceived and some of them were not willing to open the garden to the public, provided that the garden was one of their reasons of buying the flats and they had to pay for the management and maintenance fees of the garden.
After the Development Bureau (發展局) compiled and revealed the information of 152 public open spaces in private developments to increase transparency and accountability in planning and land matters on 28 March 2008,[40] in response to the Times Square case, some households of Metro Harbour View discovered that the podium garden of their estate was not private space and thus had to be shared with the public, which they were not informed by the developers when purchasing the residential units.[41] They felt like being deceived and some of them were not willing to open the garden to the public, provided that the garden was one of their reasons of buying the flats and they had to pay for the management and maintenance fees of the garden.
In view of the situation, the Government considered sympathetically waiving the requirements in the leases for opening certain public open spaces on private developments for public use. For 48 public open spaces provided by private developers, seven of them are located in housing estates, including Metro Harbour View. But only Metro Harbour View was given the exceptional consideration for the waiver. The Development Bureau explained that it was because the 9,000m2 of public space of the estate was fully integrated with the tower blocks and private clubhouse facilities.[42] Yet, the explanation was not convincing and evoked even more vigorous debates on the design, development, regulations, ownership, management, rights of access and usage of the public open spaces in the city. For example, some questioned why the land lease of Long Beach (浪澄灣) in Tai Kok Tsui, another private housing estate with public open space, required the concerned developer to construct a sitting-out area on the adjacent land of the estate, while the land lease of Metro Harbour View in the same district did not have such an additional condition, and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department had to apply for funds to construct sitting-out facilities on the adjacent land of Metro Harbour View.[43]
Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor told the legislators a few months after the disclosure of the case of Metro Harbour View that the government would remain committed to the policy regarding the public open spaces in private properties. She said the strategy had worked over the years and should not be abandoned just because of one or two isolated cases, though the implementation of the policy might have problems.[44] On the other side, due to the planning failure of Metro Harbour View, the Town Planning Board would no longer receive recommendations to accept public open spaces in private developments or with adjacent government land unless the existing or planned open spaces in the districts were lacking.[45]
The controversy is still ongoing and the affected residents may take legal action in the future.
Conclusion
From a general view of the public spaces and the close-ups of some of the provocative ones in Hong Kong, we know what major problems concerning public space are present in the city, one of the development prototypes of modernized, highly developed city in Asia. The lack of public space catering to the contemporary needs in the city was mainly due to the ineffective planning of public space and open space by the Hong Kong Government, and the uncooperative private developers who skillfully seized the opportunity to get bonus floor area for self profits but at the same time not genuinely providing public spaces for the betterment of the city as expected by the Government under the mechanism.
The controversy of the provision and management of the public space of Times Square can be summarized as the conflicts between the stands of the agency of the public space. For a private enterprise, the piazza of Times Square is a resource of the company and the first priority is to make money from it rather than providing proper space for the public. The company saw the piazza as a sheer pedestrian access as specified in the Deed of Dedication before the case caught public attention. For the Government, though it is specified as pedestrian access in the Deed, the piazza is an open space for the public with passive amenities. It should not be used just like another commercial open space. The private enterprises think it is good enough already to build, manage and maintain a privately owned area which is open to the public, though they receive bonus floor area for their developments as the return. They find no obligation in doing the job which the Government should do itself – to provide public space with good quality.
For the disputes regarding the public open spaces located in housing estates provided by private developers, they show the conflict between personal benefit and the public one. On a personal level, the residents paid for the construction, management and maintenance of the public open spaces and naturally do not want to share them with the others. However, for social justice, these spaces are specified in the regulations and policy that they should be open to the public. The dilemma is caused by the absence of full and clear information on the ownership, responsibility of management and maintenance of the space and facilities in the housing estate during the selling and purchasing of the flats. The ideal situation in the affected cases would be the private developers bought the public open spaces back and ‘returned’ them to the housing residents.
Bibliographical List
1. Hajer, Maarten and Reijndorp, Arnold. In Search of New Public Domain. Rotterdam: Nai Publishers, 2001.
2. Kayden, Jerold S.. Privately owned Public Space: the New York City Experience . New York: John Wiley, c2000.
3. Luk, W.L.. ‘Privately Owned Public Space in Hong Kong and New York: The Urban and Spatial Influence of the Policy’. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU) titled The New Urban Question – Urbanism beyond Neo-liberalism, Amsterdam and Delft, Netherlands, 2009.
4. Madanipour, Ali. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London: Routledge, 2003.
5. Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992.
6. The Ghent Urban Studies Team. The Urban Condition: Space, Community, and Self in the Contemporary Metropolis. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 1999.
[1] Ali Madanipour, Public and Private Spaces of the City (London: Routledge, 2003), 111. Originally published in Stanley I. Benn and G.F. Gaus, ed., Public and Private in Social Life (London: St. Martin’s Press & Croom Helm, 1983).
[4] Bart Eeckhout and Steven Jacobs, ‘3 Recent Transformations of Urban Public Space’ in The Urban Condition: Space, Community, and Self in the Contemporary Metropolis, The Ghent Urban Studies Team (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 1999), 89-90.
[9] Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), ‘Learning about Country Parks: Country Parks & Special Areas‘, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department official website, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/country/cou_lea/cp_sa.html.
[10] ‘The sports facilities and other amenities in Hong Kong's 18 districts comprise 41 gazetted beaches, 37 swimming pools, two outdoor stadia (Hong Kong Stadium and Mong Kok Stadium), 46 natural turf pitches, 25 artificial turf pitches, 233 hard-surface soccer pitches, two hockey pitches, two rugby pitches, 88 sports centres, 294 squash courts, 24 sports grounds, 260 tennis courts, four golf driving ranges, five water sports centres, four holiday camps, 24 major parks and 680 children's playgrounds. These leisure facilities cover a total area of 2 343 hectares.’ (Leisure and Cultural Services Department of the HKSAR Government, ‘Publications and Press Releases - 2008-09 Annual Report: Leisure Services – Recreational and Sports Facilities’, Leisure and Cultural Services Department official website, http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/dept/annualrpt/2008-09/eng/ls/index03.htm.)
[11] Planning Department of The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, ‘Access to Information: Planning Enquiry Counters – Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines – Chapter 4: Recreational, Open Space and Greening’, Planning Department official website, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch4/ch4_text.htm.
[15] Planning Department of The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, ‘Access to Information: Planning Enquiry Counters – Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines – Chapter 4: Recreational, Open Space and Greening’, Planning Department official website, Section 1.8 Table 1.
[18] Bart Eeckhout and Steven Jacobs, ‘3 Recent Transformations of Urban Public Space’ in The Urban Condition: Space, Community, and Self in the Contemporary Metropolis, The Ghent Urban Studies Team (Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 1999), 88.
[20] Jerold S. Kayden, Privately owned Public Space: the New York City Experience (New York: John Wiley, c2000), 11.
[26] W.L. Luk, ‘Privately Owned Public Space in Hong Kong and New York: The Urban and Spatial Influence of the Policy’ (paper presented at the 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU) titled The New Urban Question – Urbanism beyond Neo-liberalism, Amsterdam and Delft, Netherlands, 2009), 698.
[28] Diana Lee, ‘Pushy Times Square Guards raise Hackles,’ The Standard, March 05, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong, http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=62525&sid=17904294&con_type=1&d_str=20080305&sear_year=2008.
[30] W.L. Luk, ‘Privately Owned Public Space in Hong Kong and New York: The Urban and Spatial Influence of the Policy’ (paper presented at the 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU) titled The New Urban Question – Urbanism beyond Neo-liberalism, Amsterdam and Delft, Netherlands, 2009), 698.
[31] Diana Lee, ‘Democrats Enter Fray in Times Square Rent Row,’ The Standard, March 06, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong, http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=62639&sid=17926300&con_type=1&d_str=20080306&sear_year=2008.
[32] Timothy Chui, ‘Plaza sued over Exorbitant Rentals,’ The Standard, June 18, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong, http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=67363&sid=19388986&con_type=3&d_str=20080618&sear_year=2008.
[33] Diana Lee, ‘Pushy Times Square Guards raise Hackles,’ The Standard, March 05, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong.
[34] Diana Lee, ‘Democrats Enter Fray in Times Square Rent Row,’ The Standard, March 06, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong.
[35] Diana Lee, ‘Pushy Times Square Guards raise Hackles,’ The Standard, March 05, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong.
[37] Timothy Chui, ‘Plaza sued over Exorbitant Rentals,’ The Standard, June 18, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong.
[38] The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, ‘Legislative Council Question 7: Inclusion of Community Facilities in Developments’, Press Releases, March 26, 2007, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200703/28/P200703280206.htm.
[42] Timothy Chui, ‘Public Space Struggle,’ The Standard, December 09, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong.
[43] The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, ‘Legislative Council Question 7: Inclusion of Community Facilities in Developments’, Press Releases, March 26, 2007, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200703/28/P200703280206.htm.
[44] Timothy Chui, ‘Public Space Struggle,’ The Standard, December 09, 2008, Features section, Hong Kong.
凌晨拜讀了，獲益良多
回覆刪除如你所說，其實問題不一定在整體公共空間是否足夠，而在社會資源及利益的平均分配及規劃上的程序公義
當年我也很留意這兩則新聞，但一晃眼已經七年，似乎無人再提。不知最後政府和時代廣場的官司判決是甚麼，港灣豪庭平台又是否依然不開放？