BACKGROUND AND HIGHLIGHTS 背景及重點

1

Harbour-front Enhancement Committee (HEC)Task Group on Urban Design Study

for the New Central Harbourfront (TGUDS)共建維港委員會中環新海濱研究專責小組Report on the Findings of the

Stage 2 Public Engagement of the Study第二階段公眾參與研究報告

2

BACKGROUND AND HIGHLIGHTSBACKGROUND AND HIGHLIGHTS背景及重點背景及重點Duration: 11 April 2008 to end-July 2008諮詢日期 : 二零零八年四月十一日至七月底Major Activities and Channels for collecting Public Views:主要活動及收集公眾意見的方法 • Public Exhibitions公眾展覧• Roving Exhibitions巡迴展覽• Focus Group Workshop (FGW)專題小組工作坊• Community Engagement Forum (CEF)公眾參與論壇

3

BACKGROUND AND HIGHLIGHTSBACKGROUND AND HIGHLIGHTS背景及重點背景及重點Main Activities and Channels for collecting Public Views:主要活動及收集公眾意見的方法 • Comment Cards意見卡• Face-to-face Interviews面談訪問• Telephone Polls電話調查• Briefings to relevant Public and Advisory Bodies向有關公衆組織及諮詢團體舉行簡介會• Public Submissions in Writing or other Format 以書面或其他形式提出的意見書

4

ObjectivesObjectives 目的目的

To collect public views and suggestions on:就以下事項收集公眾意見及建議• The proposed design vision and design framework

設計理想及設計大綱• Design concepts for the key sites (including re-assembling Queen’s

Pier and reconstructing the old Star Ferry Clock Tower)主要用地的設計概念 ( 包括重組皇后碼頭及重建舊天星鐘樓 )

5

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIESPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES公眾參與活動公眾參與活動Public Exhibitions :公眾展覽• The Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre

(12 April to 25 May 2008)香港文物探知館( 二零零八年四月十二日至五月二十五日 )

• Queensway Government Offices(27 May to 10 July 2008) 金鐘政府合署( 二零零八年五月二十七日至七月十日 )

• A total of about 13,700 visitors總共約 13,700 人次

6

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIESPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES公眾參與活動公眾參與活動Roving Exhibitions :巡迴展覽• 7 roving exhibitions 於七個地點舉行巡迴展覽• Central (3 places), Tsim Sha Tsui, Tseung Kwan O, Shatin,

Wang Tau Hom中環 ( 三個地點 ) 、尖沙咀、將軍澳、沙田、橫頭墈• A total of about 11,340 visitors總共約 11,340 人次

7

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIESPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES公眾參與活動公眾參與活動

8

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIESPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES公眾參與活動公眾參與活動Focus Group Workshop and Community Engagement Forum(26 April and 24 May 2008 respectively):專題小組工作坊及公眾參與論壇( 分別於二零零八年四月二十六日及五月二十四日舉行 )

• FGW: 49 participants (mainly for professionals and academics) 專題小組工作坊 : 49 人 ( 主要為專業人士及學界參與 )• CEF: 142 participants (targeted for the general public)

公眾參與論壇 : 142 人 ( 開放予公眾人士參與 )

9

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIESPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES公眾參與活動公眾參與活動

10

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIESPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES公眾參與活動公眾參與活動Comment Cards, Face-to-face Interviews and Telephone Polls:意見卡、面談訪問及電話調查• No. of Responses:

回應數目 1,872 comment cards

1,872 份意見卡 365 valid face-to-face interviews

365 個有效的面談訪問 2,471 successful telephone interviews

2,471 個成功的電話調查

11

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENTPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT A ACTIVITIESCTIVITIES公眾參與活動公眾參與活動Public Submissions :公眾提交的意見書• 64 submissions received from various organizations and individuals收到六十四份來自不同團體及個人的意見書Briefings to Relevant Public and Advisory Bodies :向有關公衆組織及諮詢團體舉行的簡介會• 18 District Councils (DCs)十八區區議會• Relevant public and advisory bodies有關公眾及諮詢團體• Interested professional groups and organizations有興趣的專業團體及組織

12

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIESPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES公眾參與活動公眾參與活動Guided Tours :導賞活動• Guided tours for 7 schools and 2 interested organizations

為七所學校及兩個有興趣的團體舉辦導賞活動

13

Schematic Representation of Study研究的示意圖Comment

Cards意見卡

SubmissionsMeeting Records書面呈交意見會議記錄

Interviews & Phone Poll面談訪問及電話民意調查

Public Opinion總結公眾意見

14

Quantitative & Qualitative DataQuantitative & Qualitative Data量性及質性資料量性及質性資料Quantitative data:量性資料• Responses to close-ended questions of the comment cards, face-to-

face interviews, and telephone polls就意見卡、面談訪問及電話調查的選擇題所得的回應Qualitative data:質性資料• Written comments in comment cards, face-to-face interviews, FGW

and CEF, public submissions, and records of briefings to relevant public and advisory bodies意見卡、面談訪問、專題小組工作坊及公眾參與論壇所收集到的具體意見、公眾提交的意見書、以及有關公眾組織及諮詢團體簡介會的記錄

• Transcribed and coded into 10,203 text units　編纂成 10,203 個文字段

15

Robustness of the Study研究的準確性高Diverse sources of data多元化的資料來源Large number of cases from most sources資料來源均有頗大的數量Computer Assisted Analysis of Qualitative data 電腦輔助質性資料分析 Triangulation三角印證

16

90%

100%

81%90%

84%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CommentCards

Face toFace

Interview s

TelephonePolls

FGW CEF Qualitative

Positive Views正面意見Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成

Overall Design Vision設計理想

17

FINDINGSFINDINGS調查結果調查結果Overall Design Vision: 設計理想• Overwhelming support and general appreciation大比數支持並普遍贊同

18

81%79%

100%

74%

85%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

C ommentC ards

Face to FaceInterview s

Telephone Polls FGW C EF Qualitative

Positive Views正面意見Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成

Sustainable and Balanced Approach可持續及平衡的形式

19

FINDINGSFINDINGS調查結果調查結果Sustainable and Balanced Approach可持續及平衡的形式• General support for this approach 普遍支持此形式

20

59%

80%77%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

C omment C ards Face to FaceInterview s

FGW C EF

The Refined Urban Design Framework – Diverse Uses and Activities經優化的城市設計大綱 – 多様化用途及活動

Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成

21

60%

73%73% 72%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


FGW C EF

The Refined Urban Design Framework – Respecting Natural Setting經優化的城市設計大綱 – 融合自然環境


22

58%64%

60%

43% *

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Comment Cards Face to FaceInterviews

FGW CEF

* 43% (agreed or strongly agreed); 29% (disagreed or strongly disagreed); 28% (neutral)

43% ( 贊成或十分贊成 ); 29% ( 不贊成或十分不贊成 ); 28% ( 中立 )


The Refined Urban Design Framework – Respecting Existing Urban Fabric經優化的城市設計大綱 – 融合周邊現有發展

23

81%81%74%

85%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Comment Cards Face to FaceInterview s

FGW CEF

The Refined Urban Design Framework – Promoting Harbourfront Enchancement經優化的城市設計大綱 – 提升海濱環境質素


24

36%**44%*

55%56%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


FGW C EF


44% ( 贊成或十分贊成 ); 12% ( 不贊成或十分不贊成 ); 43%( 中立 )

** 36% (agreed or strongly agreed); 31% (disagreed or strongly disagreed); 33% (neutral)


The Refined Urban Design Framework – Respecting Cultural Heritage經優化的城市設計大綱 – 尊重文化歷史脈絡


25

52%

78%71%

44%*

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


FGW CEF



The Refined Urban Design Framework – Ease of Pedestrian Access to Harbourfront經優化的城市設計大綱 – 方便行人通往海旁


26

58%

79%77%

47%*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


FGW CEF

•47% (agreed or strongly agreed); 47% (disagreed or strongly disagreed; 7% (neutral)


The Refined Urban Design Framework – Promoting Greening and

Environmentally Friendly Building Design經優化的城市設計大綱 – 鼓勵綠化及環保建築設計


27

FINDINGS調查結果The Refined Urban Design Framework:經優化的城市設計大綱• Generally agreed - satisfied the sustainable design principles普遍贊同 – 能夠滿足可持續發展設計原則• Major Views/Suggestions:主要意見 / 建議

Should have adequate mechanism to ensure the achievement of the design principle on “promoting greening and environmentally friendly building design” 應有充足的機制以確保能達致「提倡環保設計及綠化」的設計原則

Relatively lower level of agreement that the principle of “respecting cultural heritage” has been satisfied在「尊重文化歷史脈絡」的設計原則方面獲得相對較低的支持

28

54% 57%

81%

51%

34%*

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

CommentCards

Face to FaceInterv iews

FGW CEF Qualitative

Meeting Public Aspirations滿足公眾期望

Positive Views正面意見Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成 * 25% (negative views); 41% (other suggestions)

25% ( 負面意見 ); 41% ( 其他建議 )

29

FINDINGS調查結果Meeting Public Aspirations:滿足公眾期望• The majority of the respondents/participants agreed or strongly agreed t

hat the refined urban design framework has met the public aspirations for a vibrant, green and accessible new Central harbourfront大部分回應 / 參與者贊成或十分贊成經優化的城市設計大綱能滿足公眾所期望的一個朝氣蓬勃、綠化和暢達的中環新海濱

30

37%31%31%

59%54%

9%

10%10%

13%

2%

4%

6%14%

9%

2%

11%

29%18%

6%33%

53%

20%16%14%

A

B

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Comment Cards Face to FaceInterviews

Telephone Polls FGW CEF Qualitative*

Site 1 & 2一號及二號用地

Concept A概念 AConcept B概念 B

Both A & B概念 A 及 B

Positive Views * 84% related to Concept A; 16% related to Concept B正面意見 84% 與概念 A 有關 ; 16% 與概念 B 有關

No Preference沒有優先選擇 Dislike Both Concept A & B不喜歡概念 A 及 B

31

FINDINGS調查結果Design Concepts for Key Sites – Sites 1 and 2:主要用地的設計概念 – 一號及二號用地• General support for the design concepts (particularly in comment

cards and face-to-face interviews), except for about half of the participants in FGW who disliked both concepts 設計概念獲得普遍支持 (尤其在意見卡和面談訪問中 )，惟約半數專題小組工作坊的參與人士表示兩者皆不喜歡

• Among those who had chosen between Concept A (hotel + office) and B (office + office), a clear preference for Concept A to Concept B在概念 A(酒店 + 辦公室 ) 及概念 B( 辦公室 + 辦公室 ) 的選擇中，選擇概念 A明顯較選擇概念 B 為多

32

33%49%

42%

22%

53%

49%

42%

57%

8% 2% 4%

A

B

11%

3%

4% 6%

5%3%5%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

CommentCards


FGW CEF Qualitative*

Site 3三號用地





33

FINDINGS調查結果Design Concepts for Key Sites – Site 3 :主要用地的設計概念 – 三號用地• General support普遍支持• More support for Concept B (Larger Landscaped Deck) as

compared to Concept A (Reduced Landscaped Deck), though the preference was not clear in the face-to-face interviews and FGW相對於概念 A(園景平台較小 )，較多回應支持概念 B(園景平台較大 )。面談訪問及專題小組工作坊的選擇傾向則不太明顯

34

43%53%

13%

32%

15%38%

31%

33%

7%

26%

1.0%

1%

33%

9%7%

3%

20%21%6%

6%

A

B

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Comment Cards Face to Face Interviews FGW CEF Qualitative*

Site 4四號用地





35

FINDINGS調查結果Design Concepts for Key Sites – Site 4 :主要用地的設計概念 – 四號用地• General support普遍支持• Most responses in comment cards, face-to-face interviews and CEF

preferred Concept A (More Separate blocks with Star Ferry Clock Tower) as compared to Concept B (Fewer Separate Blocks)在意見卡、面談訪問及公眾參與論壇中，傾向選取概念 A(較多獨立建築物，包含天星鐘樓 ) 的回應多於概念 B(較少獨立建築物 )

36

76%82%73%

66%

54%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

CommentCards


FGW CEF Qualitative

Site 5五號用地

Positive Views正面意見Like the Concept喜歡概念

37

86%

66%

79% 73%

57%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

CommentCards


FGW CEF Qualitative

Site 6六號用地

Positive Views正面意見Like the Concept喜歡概念

38

FINDINGS調查結果Design Concepts for Key Sites – Site 5 & 6 :主要用地的設計概念 – 五號及六號用地• Majority of the respondents/participants liked the design concepts 大多數回應 / 參與者喜歡此設計概念• The proposed arts and cultural facilities were generally supported擬議的藝術及文化設施獲得普遍支持• Some concerns on the possible duplication of such facilities with those

in West Kowloon關注到有關設施會否與西九龍區的設施重疊• Further improvement to the accessibility and vibrancy of the area進一步改善該用地的暢達性並提升活力

39

8.0%

26% 28%21%

31%

47%

47%

60%

45%

5%

31%

21%

16%

4%

15%

A

B

33%

14%4%

5%3%

10%4% 12%3% 2%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

C ommentC ards


Telephone Polls FGW C EF Qualitat ive*

5

Site 7七號用地





40

FINDINGS調查結果Design Concepts for Key Sites – Site 7 :主要用地的設計概念 – 七號用地• General support普遍支持• Majority of the responses in the comment cards, face-to-face

interviews, and telephone polls were in favour of Concept B (Urban Green), while more participants in the FGW and CEF were in favour of Concept A (Urban Park)在意見卡、面談訪問及電話調查中，大多數回應喜歡概念 B(都市綠州 )，而在專題小組工作坊和公眾參與論壇中，則有較多參與者喜歡概念 A(都市公園 )

41

55%

16%27%

58%49%

27%39%

25%26%27% 20%

10%

7%1% 1%

13%16%5% 7%

27%

A

B

6%8%6%7% 9%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

C ommentC ards


Telephone Polls FGW C EF Qualitative*

Re-assembling Queen’s Pier and Site 8重組皇后碼頭及八號用地





42

FINDINGS調查結果Re-assembling Queen’s Pier and Site 8 :重組皇后碼頭及八號用地• Majority of the responses in the comment cards, face-to-face

interviews, CEF and briefings to DCs were in favour of Concept A (Queen’s Pier by the Harbour), while more responses in FGW were in favour of Concept B (Queen’s Pier at Original Location)在意見卡、面談訪問、公眾參與論壇及區議會簡介中，大多數回應喜歡概念 A(在海濱重組皇后碼頭 )；在專題小組工作坊中，則有較多參與者喜歡概念 B(原址重組皇后碼頭 )

• In telephone polls, even distribution among those who preferred Concept A, Concept B, and with no preference在電話調查中，受訪者的意願平均分佈在概念 A 及概念 B，和並沒有取向

43

Reconstructing Old Star Ferry Clock Tower重建舊天星碼頭鐘樓





49%

29%23%

13%

42%

22%

42%

39% 56%

16%

6%

7%

4%

8% 15% 23% 26%

10%

11%13% 4%

5%

27%

1%

A

B

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CommentCards

Face toFace

Interv iews

TelephonePolls

FGW CEF Qualitativ e*

44

FINDINGS調查結果Reconstructing Old Star Ferry Clock Tower :重組舊天星鐘樓• More responses in the comment cards and CEF liked Concept A (Clock

Tower at Site 4), while more responses in face-to-face interviews, telephone polls and FGW liked Concept B (Clock Tower close to Original Location)在意見卡和公眾參與論壇中，大多數回應喜歡概念 A(在四號用地重建鐘樓 )；在面談訪問、電話調查及專題小組工作坊中，則有較多回應喜歡概念 B(在原址附近重建鐘樓 )

• Relevant positive views in the qualitative analysis were quite evenly distributed between Concepts A and B在質性研究中，有關的正面觀點平均分佈於概念 A 及概念 B

45

FINDINGS調查結果Other Issues: 其他事宜• Environmental concerns and provision of eco-friendly facilities關注環保事項及希望提供保護生態環境的設施• Concerns on roads and pedestrian access關注道路及行人通道的暢達• Formulate a broad landscape design for a tree-lined boulevard along Road P2沿 P2路設計一條寛闊的園景林蔭大道• Provision of more multi-purpose facilities提供更多元化的設施• Public engagement process for the Study研究的公眾參與過程• Harbour reclamation填海事宜• Cycling tracks or other environmentally friendly transport modes設立單車徑或其他環保交通• Management of the harbourfront development海濱發展的管理

46

Thank you多謝

Documents

BACKGROUND AND HIGHLIGHTS 背景及重點