Life as we know it will come to an end in 2014 if these plans get the go-ahead:

http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/prof ... esb223.pdf

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

Living Lamma just found out about this last week.

Gathering information first and will soon start a campaign.

So far: the govt claims that there has been extensive public consultation.

When we expressed surprise and total ignorance of any such, eventually they admitted this was actually "talking to Yu Lai Fan and the Rural Committee".

And for a preview, have a look at the concrete wasteland that Peng Chau's waterfront has become. Looks like the containment area around Chernobyl: hundreds of tons of concrete poured from a helicopter, and totally lifeless, ugly and hostile.

Excellent, looks quite nice.

About time the mess was cleaned up and some decent public space created.

Hopefully the shops on main street will be easier to get to on the weekend

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks good for anyone who doesn't like the Sampan seafood restaurant or the drinking pit opposite the bait shop that the fishermen use.

I reckon that no one could f**k up the shoreline of YSW as bad as it is already.
But perhaps I underestimate the HK Government

Aside from destroying what's left of the original beach and shoreline, there will be a 3.5 metre seawall to protect us from tsunamis (which we all know are a huge risk here). So the ony people with a seaview will be up in Po Wah Yuen. Tourists from Mongkok will feel right at home.

In 2003 the proposed reclamation of Yung Shue Wan harbour was suspended thanks to widespread opposition from Lamma residents, tourists, and local business people. So it may come as a surprise to many to find out that a revised version of the plan has quietly made its way to the Environmental Protection Department for approval.

Although the government's intention to enhance Lamma's attractiveness is good, the plan to reclaim the harbour is badly flawed.

One great charm and vibrancy of Yung Shue Wan is attributable to the natural expansion of restaurants and houses along the coast. The proposed seawall and extended concrete would render the entire waterfront artificial, restaurants and bars will no longer be on the waterfront but will overlook an Emergency Vehicle Access road instead!

For a taste of this future, take a look at the completed first phase reclamation on the other side of the harbour. Few would disagree that it looks like an abandoned parking lot, in sharp contrast to the original picturesque coastline. Other examples of unfortunate mistakes in similar island settings can be seen in Mui Wo and Peng Chau.

Part of the reason this planned reclamation is moving forward is that it has been on the books for nearly 20 years, and though times and people’s sentiments have changed, it is hard for government departments to drop a plan that has been circulating through bureaucratic channels for such a long time.

A lot of people care about Yung Shue Wan, and if just a fraction of us take action when needed the impact can be huge. This has been the case so far where even written objections from just a small portion of those opposed was sufficient to get the project suspended. The last thing politicians need is to be seen to be wasting taxpayer money on unpopular, badly planned, culturally and environmentally insensitive projects. Tourism is a priority for this administration, and they are going to need to do a lot of explaining to justify any kind of reclamation when over 98% of tourists polled in 2003 said they oppose it.

Personally - i dont think it looks too bad while what we have at the moment does not look good at all.

While I respect thier good intentions, I find that our Lamma activists tend to have a fundamental policy of being against any form of development at all and as with all fundamentalists they tend to lose the ability to entertain any other views than their own.

You may say that what we now have from the previous development now looks like an abandoned car park but before that it was essentially a coastline of household and building waste , it was claimed at the time that the redevelopment would ruin the unspoilt coastline, but is rubbish and building waste an unspoilt coastline ? I have been on lamma for about 17 years and I never remember it being different. Obviously there was an unspoilt coastline there somewhere but unfortunately for a decade and a half it was buried inder a rubbish tip. Surely what is there now is better than that ?

The harbour looks pretty grotty these days, graffiti everywhere and those disgusting sewage pipes from all the restaurants sitting on top of what sand there is are simply foul, . Some may see this as "rustic charm " but not everyone on the island sees it this way.

Our Lamma activists might be better off putting their heads together and coming up with another plan instead of simply saying no to any form of redevelopment at all and being blind to the fact that something needs to be done about the current state of the harbour

The "Lamma activists" I know DO come up with other plans.
I personally have several times.
I've spent about three years trying to get them to consider building just a simple fucking bicycle rack on the pier, with no result.
The government simply ignores any suggestions unless you make an enormous fuss; or are connected with the DAB.

Then, as in this case, they just go away for a while and come back with exactly the same plan as was rejected by the community as a whole (not just "activists").

And "activists" do not "simply say no to any form of redevelopment ". You're sounding like a shill for Yu Lai Fan now.

No one objected to the sewage project, for one thing.

With this plan we are trying to
1) determine just what they're planning and 2) try to make it less awful.

See the YSL nullah here for instance of the style of design they favour and what we'll get along the whole bay if they just go ahead..

Xerxes wrote: I have been on lamma for about 17 years and I never remember it being different. Obviously there was an unspoilt coastline there somewhere but unfortunately for a decade and a half it was buried inder a rubbish tip.

There was a lovely beach there before - it only became an unsightly tip after the approval of Phase I. And those aren't restaurant sewage pipes - they are for pumping 'fresh' seawater for their seafood tanks.

I'd agree with Xerxes, anything that can hide that f#*cking awful, embarassing, ERA hippy shit sea wall graffti has got to be better than nothing. I would love to find the little sh*t that painted it and make him (or her) clean the f#*king thing before they demolish it. It makes me embarrassed to bring visitors to YSW. Grrr.

You realise of course that the project would create a huge canvas for graffiti artists.
Maybe that's the one bright part of the plan.

As for the original coastline, see
http://www.compunicate.com/Lamma-zine/PG-Reclamation-Photo-History.htm


Yung Shue Wan, 1963


Hunter's Beach, with the eponymous Hunter

[quote="You realise of course that the project would create a huge canvas for graffiti artists.
Maybe that's the one bright part of the plan[/quote]

F#*king activists!

Xerxes, how does pouring concrete make Lamma a better place? The mess you refer to will still be there.
If you have a messy flat, what do you do? Do you tidy up or do you pour a bucket of concrete on it?

The 1st phase of the development - while it may look like an abandoned car park, is no longer under 4 feet of household and building waste, it could have been cleaned up but it never was for years and years - so i personally would prefer the current look to the former one.

The main point I was making though, was that rather than simply being against any kind of development whatsoever, our local activists/capaigners or whatever - might start suggesting alternatives instead of essentially condeming us all to the current eyesore of a harbour for all eternity. Has there ever been a proposed development that has not been immediately been decried as something bad for the island ? if there has been one I am not aware of it.

Cleaning it up would be a start I agree and there may well be better alternatives than the one proposed, but I dont think what has been proposed is the nightmare scenario its being made out to be and I actually think it will look ok.
This development may well get the local restaurants to spruce up their rear seating areas as well to attract the extra traffic passing by on the new harbour Rd which will in turn make high street as a whole look much nicer

And the main point I was making is that this statement you keep repeating is not true..



Have a look at Peng Chau and you'll see exactly how crap it will be.

The govt likes to use the same designs everywhere, and this will follow exactly what they did there. Concrete bunkers, walling off the coastline.

Well as I said Alan - I am not aware of any proposed development that has not been instantly decried as bad for the Island, this is what has made me come to that conclusion - do you know of any ?

and before you mention it - a sewer system is a basic necessity hardly new development it was simply something that was loooong overdue

------------------------
mod note: please use the EDIT button to add to your last post rather than make successive posts

Ha ha ha. If this plan goes ahead, the restaurants' rear seating areas will be staring at 20 metres of concrete and a sea wall that makes it impossible to see the sea!

_________________
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.

xerxes, what makes you think that once they face a strip of concrete, these restaurants will spruce up? Main Street will be just as messy as it is now, the only difference will be...the sea will be further away.
Planning is key...and on Lamma no planning regulations are enforceable, and not because of activists...think indigenous villagers and you are much closer to the truth. Did you read the paper today? Interesting story about Sai Kung country park...who is behind the mess in the New Territories? Activists??? Please, give me a break

Why the hell shouldn't I mention the sewer system?
That you want to exclude that shows you already know that your statement is false.


If you exclude the necessary projects, what we're left with are, by definition, useless and deserving of criticism.

Otherwise, various members of Living Lamma (an "activist" group, by your lights) have been working with the LCSD and Home Affairs to improve the design of some projects. The sitting out area in Tai Peng currently. Another minor achievement was to get them to use stainless steel for the new railings below the hotel near the pier, instead of the usual tubing which quickly rusts and has to be replaced every few years.


It's clear that many projects are originated by the local politicians and designed simply to spend their share of the government booty, giving contracts to their supporters in local construction companies. And they're sited and planned to use public land, which cost the government nothing, regardless of the loss of use to the public.

Recent example: the spending of $300,000 for the digital clock that reduced the seating in the one and only sitting out area in Main Street.

Ugly, unnecessary, wasteful and inconvenient to everyone.

In any case, such ad hominem arguments are a distraction from discussing the merits of the projects. I could, and sometimes do, ramble on about the obvious financial motives behind the white elephants that abound here, but you have to make a case for the project itself, not decide because of your feelings for the people who support or oppose it..