IMG_5313

市區重建策略的諮詢開始進入第二階段,政府和市建局的前提是甚麼呢?就如下篇相關的文章,市建局的膳稿越來越來多,底牌越見明顯。

正如不少民間團體所估計,市建局經過在灣仔、旺角、官塘等掠取土地後,核心市區靚地已所餘無幾。於是將其目光轉向工業土地,現時工業用地有1千7百34萬多平方米,但70年代以前的只佔8.1%,58.5%是建於80年代或以後,私人發展商(特別是新地、恆基)在九十年代己經陸續在官塘、荃灣等市中心的工業區,對業權單一的工廈大門,展開收地發展大型商用或住宅發展項目,如︰APM、創紀之城在官塘,爵悅庭在荃灣。工業區普遍樓齡遍低,地積比較高,而空置率不高,於2007年空置率為6.2,比商業樓宇的8.2更低,加上不少樓宇業權分散。市建局作為政府法定機構,當然擇肥而噬,以公權再介入私人產權。另外,市建局在面對不同社區時,都引發街坊的反對和抗爭,相比工業區沒有居民下,市建局工作就能容易進行,反對聲音一定更少。

問題在架構

除了工業區,市建局當然不會放過我們最珍貴的海濱用地,以整體方式(holistic approach)以社區為單位之名,對社區作整體規劃。不錯,這是很好概念,如果落實將可超越現時以為主的古蹟保育,改以為主的社區保育,但執行者是現時的市建局難以令人信服。黃竹坑、官塘、油塘等工業區正位於海濱之旁,結合重建工業區的方向,收回海濱工業用地作商業和住宅發展,建立另一個荃灣新天地、奧海城、私有化市民的海濱。市區重建策略的諮詢實情是建議擴大市建局的職權,集合城規會、古物古蹟辦事處、區議會、保護維港協會的職權於一身,發展局就是大腦,而市建局就使四肢,落手落腳的進行發展工作。官僚體系對社區進入徹底的滲透,架空其他的部門,表面看上去是整合不同官僚機構,實情是越俎代皰,如同林鄭所統領的發展機遇辦事處。現時架構,如︰城規會、古蹟辦等,接受委任者因必需反映民意,屢屢成為抗爭者爭取的場域,架構未能順利處理異議的聲音,抗議只得不斷發酵和累積,影響管治和施政的能力。用發展機遇辦事處或市建局等新設的部門,跨過現時的阻撓,就是政府頭痛醫頭的解決方法。香港政府的「大」,不在於財政預算中每年花費多少,而是她的權力可以無限伸縮和擴大。

何時才會改變市建局呢?

現時香港的重建的問題不是甚麼地區需要重建,而是怎樣的重建,市建局如果會上市的話,一定會同港鐵一樣,立即被股評人標籤為地產股。市建局一面跟不同大型地產商合作,收地分紅,另一面卻說要保育和規劃社區,難道這不是精神分裂,拿發展商的錢,卻說會平衡發展和保育,真的不會臉紅嗎?不同的社區上,市建局已弄得神憎鬼厭,它為社區帶來的不是繁榮,而是一條條抗爭的布條。

相關文章︰

文章來源︰South China Morning Post  17-3-2009

URA could be given wider role

The Urban Renewal Authority’s role may be expanded to take in rejuvenation of waterfront areas and rundown   industrial zones.

The authority is also being viewed  as a possible alternative to setting up an independent body to manage the harbourfront.

These possibilities will form part of a public consultation on urban renewal. The consultation, part of the two-year review  which started in July last year, will enter the second stage this month.

Sources close to the government steering committee reviewing the strategy said it had reached broad consensus last week that the authority’s  scope should be extended to a “district-based" approach.

Under the new approach, it  would look at every aspect of a district that needed improvement, including the waterfront and rundown industrial areas. “For example, before deciding which buildings should be demolished in Sham Shui Po, assessments should be conducted to identify which areas in the district need regeneration," a source from the steering committee said. “These areas can be streets, waterfront and industrial zones."

A holistic approach would ensure a district’s open space and historic buildings were properly preserved and that rundown areas were revitalised, the source said.

For example, the authority is involved in redeveloping Kwun Tong and Cheung Sha Wan but it only targets residential buildings, without addressing the industrial areas. The same has happened in Western district, where concerns about improving the waterfront have fallen outside the authority’s scope.

In Singapore, the Urban Redevelopment Authority leases waterfront sites and sets up agencies to manage them. Members of Hong Kong‘s Harbourfront Enhancement Committee point to Marina Bay in Singapore as a good model to follow.

A senior government source said the administration did not oppose expanding the authority’s role to include the harbourfront.

“Instead of setting up a statutory harbour authority, giving the Urban Renewal Authority an additional role could be a way out," the source said.

Review consultant   Law Chi-kwong  said the public would be asked to comment on at least eight issues raised  in the first stage of the public consultation, which ended early this year.

Advertisements