Liang Hongfu

Elegant HQ can promote city's image

By Liang Hongfu (China Daily)
Updated: 2006-03-21 06:34

Politicians in Hong Kong can get upset about almost anything. We can understand the reasons behind some of their objections, but for others, we simply don't have the faintest clue. Such illogic is best exemplified in the protest against the government's plan to build a new home for itself at the old naval dockyard site, Tamar, on the waterfront.

Let's start by asking the simple question: Does the government need a new home? Anyone who has seen that squatting eyesore on Lower Albert Road would most probably say yes. The group of low-rise buildings that houses the government headquarters is a standing example of the worst British architectural design of the early 1960s. It is the same ugly design that has more than once drawn the ire of Prince Charles, who considers buildings of that ilk a blot on the London skyline.

The space inside is a study of banality and triteness, the antithesis of the vibrant and colourful style for which Hong Kong is known. The offices are said to be crowded and the many pot plants on the window sills are an indication of the efforts people who have to work there are making to liven up the environment.

Some politicians objected to the proposed Tamar project on commercial considerations. They contend that the valuable site close to the central business district should be sold in public auction for large-scale commercial development to enrich the public coffers. Their choice of locations for the new government headquarters includes the old Kai Tak airport in the eastern side of the Kowloon peninsula.

Those suggestions may seem sensible and practical on the surface. But the reasoning behind them is both unimaginative and myopic.

The present location of the government hedquarters is part of what was the seat of colonial power that included Government House, the army barracks, which is now Pacific Place, and St. John Cathedral. A short walk down the hill were the Cricket Club, Hong Kong Club, City Hall and, of course, the High Court, all at the eastern end of Central. Tamar is right across the street from City Hall.

Indeed, the presence of the government needs to be seen not only by citizens but also by the many foreign investors. The best place for it to be seen in this unabashedly capitalist city is right there in the business centre.

To be sure, the government headquarters is going to occupy a prime, and undoubtedly expensive, location as it does now. But the image of Hong Kong must weigh heavily when computing the opportunities of the Tamar site.

What's more, as the site of the proposed government headquarters, Tamar would remain an appreciating public asset for years to come. The one-off gain of selling it for the development of another nondescript office tower is small indeed compared to the long-term benefits of projecting the image of Hong Kong's civil service, widely considered to be one of the cleanest and most efficient government bureaucracies in the world.

As such, the building of a modern and well-designed government headquarters on a prime location on the harbour front is more like brand-building for Hong Kong than a grandiose project for personal glorification, as some politicians wrongly suggest. There is no way to tell who is going to be the chief executive when the proposed building is complete and Hong Kong does not have the tradition of naming government offices after past or present officials.

The government estimates that the total cost of the proposed project, excluding land price, would amount to about HK$4.5 billion (US$577 million). That doesn't sound overly extravagant for the headquarters building of the biggest employer in Hong Kong.

It seems rather strange that one of the strongest arguments put forward by the government in defence of the headquarters proposal is the creation of 2,000 or so jobs during the construction period. That can only be a relatively insignificant side benefit of the proposed project. There must be many more cost effective ways to create construction jobs.

But let's not get bogged down by trivial arguments. Instead of proposing false choices to gain political points, Hong Kong lawmakers should support the project while trying to enlist the help of real professionals to ensure that the government building would do justice to the natural beauty and majesty of Hong Kong harbour, instead of smearing it with mediocre structures that are a reflection of the greed and short-sightedness of developers.

Email: jamesleung@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily 03/21/2006 page4)