民之所欲為先 利之所在為後

<轉載自2017年9月26日 明報 社評>

觀塘重建計劃「走樣」，市建局誠信再受質疑。局方千方百計解畫，一邊為「溝通失誤」致歉，一邊否認「走數」，可是不管有心還是無意，兩大地標「鵝蛋」和「梯田」無聲無息消失於規劃之中，是鐵一般的事實，不存在半點誤會，市民完全有理由覺得局方「走數」欺騙，並非一句「溝通誤會」可以了事。局方昧於民情，思維需要檢討。旺角波鞋街重建「貨不對辦」前車可鑑，市建局若要修訂觀塘重建規劃，也應該以民之所欲為先，利之所在為後，即使可能要犧牲總樓面面積，亦必須信守承諾，保留「鵝蛋」建築和「梯田」水景公園。

昧於民情必須檢討 市建局應信守承諾

市建局解釋事件來龍去脈，指出2007年初局方展示的「構想圖」，融入了公眾諮詢多項建議，惟並沒有可行性研究和具體數據支持。換言之，「構想圖」某程度只是向市民推銷的願景；真正包含了規劃參數的，是後來制定的「規劃總綱圖」。總綱定出規劃框架，之後再填上每個細部的建築設計，不過一些技術問題和變化，有可能影響建築設計的可行性，導致要調整規劃。局方聲稱，觀塘重建規劃需要大幅修訂，就是由於裕民坊第5發展區有逆權侵佔官司，可能嚴重影響重建進度，故此要將原本連在一起的第4和第5發展區分開重建，導致「鵝蛋」地標和「梯田」公園設計不再適用。

一個發展項目由構思到落實建築設計，面對大大小小技術挑戰，需要修訂原先規劃設計，本屬正常，然而觀塘重建規劃修改規模之大，可說是面目全非，令人難以接受。市建局行政總監韋志成承認，局方向城規會提交修訂之前，與區議會溝通不足，願意就失誤致歉，又說局方會再了解原先設計的可行性，爭取政府支持，希望亡羊補牢，不過公眾最關心的，仍然是觀塘重建會否像旺角波鞋街一樣嚴重「走樣」。

市民最大的疑惑，是為何非要犧牲「鵝蛋」和「梯田」不可。規劃總綱圖最初已包括「鵝蛋」和「梯田」，說明局方認為可行性不成問題。就算由於官司問題，必須將第4和第5重建區分開處理，也不代表要一切推倒重來，完全拋棄「鵝蛋」和「梯田」，情形一如波鞋街重建項目，城規會制定了新的樓宇高度限制，不代表市建局一定要刪走原先兩層的「康體文娛場所」遷就，而不去選擇減少住宅樓層；巿建局可以少賺一點錢，保留重建項目神髓。

市建局表示，修訂規劃並沒有「走數」或欺騙公眾之意，規劃團隊一直努力落實原圖則的重要元素，諸如改善行人通道連接等，惟對於修訂規劃後所導致的設計變化，並沒有做好全面解釋和溝通工作，導致與市民期望出現落差。誠然，修訂建議並沒有改變人車分隔等設計概念，亦不求增加樓面面積，公眾休憩及綠化空間比例更是有增無減，不過公共休憩及綠化空間不是純粹「斷斤秤」的量化概念，設計意念「形」與「實」同樣重要。

當年觀塘居民接受重建方案，一大原因是「構想圖」勾勒的社區願景相當吸引，現在大幅修訂，市建局可堅稱無心欺騙，惟從居民角度來說，絕對是「走數」。不管局方團隊如何用心貫徹規劃重要元素，當設計外觀徹底大變，沒有了「鵝蛋」和「梯田」，市民覺得被騙實是理所當然。局方代表多次出席區議會會議匯報重建進展，卻搔不着癢處，沒提放棄「鵝蛋」，只談局方認為最重要的事項，未談市民和議員最關心的問題。即使局方沒有欺瞞之意，也肯定是昧於民情，不知民之所欲，自然容易閉門造車。局方不改變這種「離地」精英思維，類似的「走數」風波未來還有可能一再上演。

保留鵝蛋梯田設計 樓面面積可以犧牲

汲取今次教訓，市建局考慮未來先聘請顧問做初步研究，確保了可行性，才向公眾展示「構想圖」願景，以免市民的期望與現實發展出現太大落差，這是較為務實的做法。舊區重建旨在改善居民生活，必須以民為先。如果市建局認為一定需要修訂觀塘重建規劃，將第4和第5發展區分開重建，也應保留「鵝蛋」地標和「梯田」公園設計，即使可能因此縮減商廈總樓面面積，影響造價和收益，亦應信守對居民的承諾；如果局方認為修訂規劃後無法再有「鵝蛋」和「梯田」，就必須重新諮詢公眾，絕對不應該做成既定事實，然後「強迫」巿民在再無選擇之下接受。

People's wishes should come before the profitability of a project

THE Kwun Tong redevelopment plan has been altered beyond recognition, with the credibility of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) once again undermined. The authority has left no stone unturned to explain what has happened, issuing an apology for a "communication problem" but at the same time denying that it has gone back on its word. No matter whether it did that on purpose or by accident, it remains an ironclad fact that the oval-shaped building and the terraced park have been removed silently from the plan.

Trying to explain the whys and wherefores of the matter, the URA said that while the "concept plan" displayed by the authority in early 2007 incorporated many suggestions from public consultation, it did not include a feasibility study. It was not supported by concrete statistics either. In other words, the "concept plan" was, to a certain extent, used only to present to citizens the vision of the plan. It was the "masterplan" that included the planning parameters. In the masterplan, the framework of the plan was laid out, which was then filled up with detailed architectural designs of each component. However, there were some technical problems or changes that could affect the feasibility of the designs, which would necessitate alterations to the plan. The URA claims that the Kwun Tong redevelopment plan needed to be revised radically because of an adverse possession lawsuit involving the fifth development zone of Yue Man Square. As the lawsuit could seriously affect the progress of redevelopment, it was necessary to build the fourth and fifth development zones, which were to be linked together in the original design, separately. As a result, the oval-shaped building and terraced park were no longer there.

It is normal for a development plan to encounter all sorts of technical challenges, big or small, between when it is conceived and when an architectural plan is confirmed. It is normal to revise an initial construction plan. But the Kwun Tong redevelopment plan has been altered on such a scale that it is now beyond recognition. This is unacceptable. Wai Chi-sing, the URA's managing director, admitted that there was a lack of communication with the District Council when the URA was about to submit the revisions to the Town Planning Board. Wai said he was willing to apologise for the mistake, adding that the URA would revisit the original design, study its feasibility and strive for the government's support in order to undo the mistake. What the public is most concerned about, however, is whether the Kwun Tong redevelopment plan would be dramatically different from the original plan — just like the "Sneakers Street" in Mong Kok.

What bewilders the public most is why the oval-shaped building and terraced park must go. In fact, both were included in the initial master plan, showing that the URA did not think there was a feasibility problem at first. Even if the lawsuit in question requires the separate developments of the fourth and fifth development zones, it does not mean that everything must be redesigned from scratch and that the oval-shaped building and terraced park must be abandoned completely. Likewise, in the Sneakers Street redevelopment plan, the URA did not have to remove the fitness and leisure facilities on the two highest levels from the plan to accommodate the new requirements on building height set by the Town Planning Board — it could have chosen to reduce the number of levels of the residential flat instead. The URA could have chosen to be less profitable and keep the distinctive features of the redevelopment plan.

Learning from the mistake, the URA will consider commissioning an initial study before presenting to the public the vision of the plan through a "master plan" in order to ensure feasibility and prevent the public's expectations from being vastly different from reality. This is a practical move. The redevelopment of old districts should be aimed at enhancing people's living. Such being the case, the wishes of the public should be valued above anything else. Even if the URA deems it necessary to revise the Kwun Tong redevelopment plan and redevelop the fourth and fifth development zones separately, it should still keep the oval-shaped building and terraced park in the design.

民之所欲為先 利之所在為後

觀塘重建計劃「走樣」，市建局誠信再受質疑。局方千方百計解畫，一邊為「溝通失誤」致歉，一邊否認「走數」，可是不管有心還是無意，兩大地標「鵝蛋」和「梯田」無聲無息消失於規劃之中，是鐵一般的事實。

市建局解釋事件來龍去脈，指出2007年初局方展示的「構想圖」，融入了公眾諮詢多項建議，惟並沒有可行性研究和具體數據支持。換言之，「構想圖」某程度只是向市民推銷的願景；真正包含了規劃參數的，是後來制定的「規劃總綱圖」。總綱定出規劃框架，之後再填上每個細部的建築設計，不過一些技術問題和變化，有可能影響建築設計的可行性，導致要調整規劃。局方聲稱，觀塘重建規劃需要大幅修訂，就是由於裕民坊第5發展區有逆權侵佔官司，可能嚴重影響重建進度，故此要將原本連在一起的第4和第5發展區分開重建，導致「鵝蛋」地標和「梯田」公園設計不再適用。

一個發展項目由構思到落實建築設計，面對大大小小技術挑戰，需要修訂原先規劃設計，本屬正常，然而觀塘重建規劃修改規模之大，可說是面目全非，令人難以接受。市建局行政總監韋志成承認，局方向城規會提交修訂之前，與區議會溝通不足，願意就失誤致歉，又說局方會再了解原先設計的可行性，爭取政府支持，希望亡羊補牢，不過公眾最關心的，仍然是觀塘重建會否像旺角波鞋街一樣嚴重「走樣」。

市民最大的疑惑，是為何非要犧牲「鵝蛋」和「梯田」不可。規劃總綱圖最初已包括「鵝蛋」和「梯田」，說明局方認為可行性不成問題。就算由於官司問題，必須將第4和第5重建區分開處理，也不代表要一切推倒重來，完全拋棄「鵝蛋」和「梯田」，情形一如波鞋街重建項目，城規會制定了新的樓宇高度限制，不代表市建局一定要刪走原先兩層的「康體文娛場所」遷就，而不去選擇減少住宅樓層；巿建局可以少賺一點錢，保留重建項目神髓。

汲取今次教訓，市建局考慮未來先聘請顧問做初步研究，確保了可行性，才向公眾展示「構想圖」願景，以免市民的期望與現實發展出現太大落差，這是較為務實的做法。舊區重建旨在改善居民生活，必須以民為先。如果市建局認為一定需要修訂觀塘重建規劃，將第4和第5發展區分開重建，也應保留「鵝蛋」地標和「梯田」公園設計。