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.

Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

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 HIGHLIGHTS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 HIGHLIGHTS 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 Objectives 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 ACTIVITIES 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 ACTIVITIES 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 ACTIVITIES 公眾參與活動

8 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 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 ACTIVITIES 公眾參與活動

10 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 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 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 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 ACTIVITIES 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 Public Opinion 總結公眾意見 Submissions Meeting 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

14 Quantitative & Qualitative Data 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 Overall Design Vision 設計理想
Positive Views 正面意見 Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成

17 FINDINGS 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 Sustainable and Balanced Approach
可持續及平衡的形式 Positive Views 正面意見 Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成

19 FINDINGS 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 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 The Refined Urban Design Framework – Respecting Natural Setting
經優化的城市設計大綱 – 融合自然環境 Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成

22 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 Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成 * 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)

23 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 Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成

24 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 Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成 * 44% (agreed or strongly agreed); 12% (disagreed or strongly disagreed); 43% (neutral) 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) 36% (贊成或十分贊成); 31% (不贊成或十分不贊成); 33%(中立)

25 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 Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成 * 44% (agreed or strongly agreed); 24% (disagreed or strongly disagreed); 31% (neutral) 44% (贊成或十分贊成); 24% (不贊成或十分不贊成); 31%(中立)

26 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 Agreed or Strongly Agreed 贊成或十分贊成 47% (agreed or strongly agreed); 47% (disagreed or strongly disagreed; 7% (neutral) 47% (贊成或十分贊成); 47% (不贊成或十分不贊成); 7%(中立)

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 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 that 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 Site 1 & 2 一號及二號用地 Concept A 概念A Concept 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 % 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 Site 3 三號用地 Concept A 概念A Concept B 概念B Both A & B 概念A及B
Positive Views * 48% related to Concept A; 52% related to Concept B 正面意見 % 與概念A有關; 52% 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

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 Site 4 四號用地 Concept A 概念A Concept B 概念B Both A & B 概念A及B
Positive Views * 65% related to Concept A; 35% related to Concept B 正面意見 % 與概念A有關; 35% 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

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 Site 5 五號用地 Positive Views 正面意見 Like the Concept 喜歡概念

37 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 Site 7 七號用地 Concept A 概念A Concept B 概念B Both A & B 概念A及B
Positive Views * 31% related to Concept A; 69% related to Concept B 正面意見 % 與概念A有關; 69% 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

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 Re-assembling Queen’s Pier and Site 8
重組皇后碼頭及八號用地 Concept A 概念A Concept B 概念B Both A & B 概念A及B Positive Views * 61% related to Concept A; 39% related to Concept B 正面意見 % 與概念A有關; 39% 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

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 Concept A 概念A Concept B 概念B Both A & B 概念A及B Positive Views * 48% related to Concept A; 52% related to Concept B 正面意見 % 與概念A有關; 52% 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

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