Wednesday, August 01, 2007

最後一夜

皇后碼頭清場倒數,晚上半公半私走了一趟,碰上久違的朋友,以及一張張年青的,理想而堅毅的臉。

揹著橙色環保袋的朱凱迪,瘦削了,沉著了。不知怎的,想起他的純粹和熱血,竟有點感動。

第一句便忍不住叫他,吃飯沒有,要吃飽一點啊。可憐他匆匆拿著半碟美心燒味飯,忙著吃又忙著商討如何應付清場。

大家也擔心清場時,他們不小心從碼頭上蓋掉到海裏。「最緊要安全呀!」我這個閒人,簡直像阿媽般囉唆了。

清場是必然現實,然而,本土行動保衛皇后碼頭,最少已令政府日後在規劃上,考慮多一點民意,灣仔街市衙前圍村有望多點「保育」。

這晚,朱凱迪說了一個皇后碼頭故事:他們一夥守衛碼頭的,要輪流待在碼頭頂,視察形勢,慎防突襲。大熱天時,這可是一件苦差,被選中的人們,就叫做「俄羅斯小組」。這晚,沒有「俄羅斯小組」了,只有「俄羅斯大組」,看守的,是場內各位。

我想,俄羅斯大組的精神,不會隨著清場而熄滅,將來要就城市規劃和保育,監察和發聲的機會還多著呢!

19 comments:

Maggie Liu said...

Our Majesty in windsor castle should be aware about the torn down of the pier in her name la.

Florence said...

Maggie, long time no see, how are you? Yes, the "皇后碼頭" 牌匾 will be torn down, oh......

jeff said...

hehe, pls link my blog into yours. thanks.

bubu said...

以後未來...賤過泥...

=)

路人C said...

咪講到香港未來保育靠晒班皇后友。都唔知幾多真係落區跟城規,咁多年來默默耕耘的人,憎班皇后友憎到出汁。因為佢地搞到好多市民連佢地D實在工作都憎埋一份,而家做野仲難過以前。唔信你是旦搵個議辦問下。

Dilman said...

老實說句, 我是對這群人的行為有點反感的. 清場行動搞了十多小時, 浪費了大量人力物力. (警察和消防員)

為何不早點提出司法程序, 而要自殘, 給政客們 "擺上枱"? 保育行動, 不應該只有一個碼頭吧!

"Everything that has a beginning has an end!"

熊一豆 said...

路人C,如果一啲議員不是吓吓都做廁所皇后,我的確相信,如今不必"浪費"大量人力物力。

路人C,我不知道你繼續到處散播仇恨、硬要把建制內和建制外絕對對立起來,到底對誰有好處?

不過,我也想告訴你,還是有不少市民,被守衛者的堅持所感動。最後再說一句,請你不要再到處散播仇恨,如果你是真心為香港好的話。

*************************

dilman,其實事件已進入司法程序,法庭下周二就有結果,但政府偏是連幾天都不願等硬要先清場,我希望你能明白,若真的存在"浪費"的話,責任真的不在守衛的人。

也請你能體諒一下,在這麼熱的天氣,連續三個多月露宿碼頭,在碼頭頂真是光是曬都會曬到甩皮,沒有什麼著數可言。請你能明白這些人的堅持,他們在守衛中環僅餘無幾的公共空間。

你知道嗎?根據政府的規劃方案,現在天星皇后的位置,會再興建一個大商場,而在新的海邊會有解放軍碼頭,這些都是在沒有諮詢市民的情況下進行的。到時,愛丁堡廣場一帶開闊的公共空間就會消失,換上又一大座商場;走在新海邊,就會見到有電閘圍欄圍住的解放軍碼頭。這是你想見到的未來中環嗎?

更多商場、更多交通流量,只會令暖化情況更嚴重;為什麼就不願意保留一個開放的公共空間呢?

如果我們真的關心這個城市日後會變成怎樣,就請你花一些時間去理解本土行動的朋友在做什麼。

他她們沒有政黨背景,也沒有政客在背後操縱。他她們,不過是一群攞個心出來關心香港的年輕人。

Florence,不好意思,借用了你的地方。

路人C said...

仇恨已經存在,不用我去散播。如果你聽不到,只是你太陶醉於和你想法一樣的小數人之間,以致你無法無別人溝通,進而無法說服他們(運動也因而注定失敗)。再者,我這幾句說話,相對於皇后友如何把和他們理念不同的人判為政府走狗、出賣戰友等等,我已經是相當客氣的了。

在快餐店關門也可以招來數千人的香港,如果你認為皇后碼頭面前的百多人也足以 legitimize 皇后友做過的任何事,包括一些 alienate 了數以十萬計市民的事,你也天真得很。我認同保留皇后碼頭,但皇后友的做法使整個運動走錯了方向。你要找被他們感動了的人,一定找得到,但人數遠遠少於本來可以爭取得到、感動得到的,浪費了難得的社會關注。

然而皇后友對自己完全沒有打算檢討,把一切的責任都推到政府的打壓和傳媒的偏向之上,自己則繼續半句遺憾抱歉也不用說。這點,你無從否認,實在引起了很多很多同道人的不滿。

potato said...

「根據政府的規劃方案,現在天星皇后的位置,會再興建一個大商場,而在新的海邊會有解放軍碼頭,這些都是在沒有諮詢市民的情況下進行的。到時,愛丁堡廣場一帶開闊的公共空間就會消失,換上又一大座商場;走在新海邊,就會見到有電閘圍欄圍住的解放軍碼頭。這是你想見到的未來中環嗎?」

你所說的中環新海邊規劃方案政府早在2006年5月發表。當時亦有不少人(包括公民黨、保護海港協會等)提出不同的意見(包括商業用地的面積、建築物的設計會否影響通風及人流等),所以方案現時仍未落實。我看不出這些討論與你們所要求的「不遷不拆」皇后碼頭有何關系。就算政府不拆皇后碼頭也一樣可以在中環新海邊規劃許多商業用地、容許發展巨大的商業大廈。你們現在的行動,只會混淆了焦點。激烈的行事方式,更難與社會上不同意見的stakeholders尋求妥協。對達至一個大多數港人都接納和認同的中環新海邊規劃和設計又有何助。

其實,規劃署現正就中環新海濱城市設計進行研究,並邀請公眾參予。你們為何不參予呢?是否又要等到日後工程進行時再呼天搶地地阻止工人開工。

熊一豆 said...

Potato,謝謝你給我機會,再解釋得清楚些。

民間當然有方案交予政府,而當然和不遷不拆絕對相關。你指出的兩個問題,其實只在於一個答案︰捍衛公共空間,人民參與規劃。

首先,民間團體(包括道路專家、建築師、規劃師)提出的方案,以保留皇后為重心,在碼頭前闢一人工湖,亦同時解決雨水渠的問題。P2路建於湖以北,只繁忙時間開放,類似現有行人專用區的處理。這足以解決填海以致清拆的最初原委︰交通問題。

在這個方案裏,既然保留了碼頭、愛丁堡廣場、天星等等的空間,若仍要作商業用途的話,面積誓將大大縮細,不可能再有一大座東西橫腰欄下。

最後,在這個民間參與的方案中,當然沒有解放軍碼頭,而把海旁發展為完全讓市民休憩之地。

這整個方案,當然都以保留皇后為前提,沒有了皇后這個開放的公共空間,這塊"地皮"的用途還用說不起大商廈嗎。

可惜,政府對這個可以解決所有問題的方案,置於不顧。29日的論壇上,若你有出席的話,可見林鄭根本就拒絕就具體問題作答,更妄論對方案提出意見。

我可以說的,就是這些,也不欲再佔用Florence的言論空間。希望你能明白,公共空間、民間參與的重要性,這也就是本土行動一直在努力爭取的。

********************

路人C,你選擇繼續敵視,我當然沒什麼好說。可是,我不會仇恨你以及議員辦。這些都不必要。可以的話,大家在各自的崗位努力吧,不要把別人想得那麼壞,自己可能也會開心啲。

路人d said...

「規劃署現正就中環新海濱城市設計進行研究,並邀請公眾參予。你們為何不參予呢?」

補充資料:規劃署那些遊戲,好像本土行動也玩過。比如「中環新海濱城市設計研究暨公眾論壇」,
2007年5月12日(星期六)
時間︰2:00 - 5:30 pm (1:45登記入場)
地點︰中環專業聯合中心
香港皇后大道中心99號
中環中心地下1室

這個本土行動就去過。下為之後的新聞報導。

Apple Daily
A11 | 港聞 2007-05-13
Highlight Keywords

百人諮詢會反對拆皇后

【本報訊】規劃署昨就皇后碼頭重置問題舉行公眾諮詢會,會上各界代表大部份都反對清拆碼頭,要求將碼頭原址保留,有代表更建議在填海後,開闢一條大運河連接碼頭至維港。規劃署昨就中環新海濱設計舉行公眾參與論壇,其中一項議題是皇后碼頭的重置,規劃署提出四個將碼頭清拆後再於原址或其他地方重置的方案,有逾100名的各界代表及市民參加。

副署長言論惹不滿

數名反對清拆皇后碼頭的人士在會場外舉起標語抗議。有代表在會上指出,古物諮詢委員會已將碼頭評為一級歷史建築,規劃署的諮詢問卷卻沒有保留碼頭的方案。規劃署副署長黃婉霜稱,不應將專業問題政治化,希望與會者就規劃署提出的方案表達意見。她的言論一度引起部份與會人士的不滿。與會的代表經分組討論,大部份表態反對規劃署的四個方案,要求原址保留整個皇后碼頭,部份代表更建議在填海後,以大水池圍繞碼頭,或開闢一條大運河,連接碼頭至維港。另外,大部份代表質疑日後的中環新填海區海旁將有一個150米長的解放軍碼頭,將海濱長廊截斷,要求將碼頭遷往昂船州。



確實,皇后碼頭保不保留未必是最重要、將來中環的規劃還有轉機;但如果不是保留皇后的聲音吵得夠大,留意中環規劃的市民大概會少很多吧。

potato said...

一豆女士:

已看過有關方案,果然是一幅美麗的圖畫,一定是出自建築師的手筆。這方案在技術上是否可行?不是專業土木工程師,我不清楚,只是有些憂慮:人工湖水平面與海面相同,打風時若潮水暴漲數十英尺,會否淹沒周圍的設施呢?我想要研究這方案在技術上是否可行,肯定花不少時間。若要落實這方案,整個工程的所有設計藍圖,施工圖則必要作極大改動,所花時間可能要一兩年。在這工程需全面停頓,以進行從新設計。你們有否考慮承建商在此之前已按原來方案準備了人力物力,納稅人要賠多少錢才可補償它們因停工一兩年而引至的損失?這方案即使在技術上是可行,林太不考慮這方案是否也有少許道理?

Stephen said...

I actually agree with 路人C, we (being most of us against the action of those people in the queen's pier) are the one who spread hate, not us. Hate is already spreaded by them, and by lots of Media. Just look at their action on that day, or the sunday when they have the forum to discuss about the future on Queen's Pier. Tell me which side is yelling, screaming, pushing, and calling name.

And I am sorry, may be I am missing something here. But according to here. I see a lots of greens, parks, sure there is an area that said "Medium Rise Commerical Development" and "Low-Rise Landscaped Pedestrian desk with commerical facities below", which to be honest, it's fine with me (because it is on the edge and it is relatively small area) and I quite like what I see there.

Personally I actually think the Media (or at least the newspaper I read) seem to be one side, keep reporting the "memories" on Queen's Pier, or about their "passion" on how to save the pier. I am sorry, but i don't understand nor support their "passion" on Queen's Pier, and I have little memory in this little place which had no architecture value whatsoever. Beside look at how they "remove" by the police on that day, the police has been extremely "nice" to these guys (think what will happen if they are handle in Korean), and yet, they are yelling, screaming, pushing and said the police are "hurting" them! Com'on, I am SUPPOSE TO "被守衛者的堅持所感動" ? Give me a break

And finally, most people, including various forums on the net, actually support the police action as well as agree with the government on this. You guys should wake up to the reality. (esp. the media, which is very disconnect to what most HK people view in this case. Just look at the RTHK show on Sunday, they were so one sided and only talk about the people against it, but there are actually a lots of people agree it is necessary but yet it is not reported)

Stephen said...

sorry, seem like I got some typo, should be: "We (being most of us against the action of those people in the queen's pier) are NOT the one who spread the hate"

And sory for using this space for such a discussion, afterall, I am just another "路人" who cannot stand all those people anymore in the queen's pier.

熊一豆 said...

Potato, 規劃圖美不美麗是其次,主要是,擁有相關專業資格的人士是以---能實行---為原則來進行規劃的。他們不是fine art artists.

就目前規劃來說,只有那條雨水渠是已簽約的,而其他的建設,都只是在規劃的層面,並未有簽約的。

如果認為民間的方案是不能落實的話,那麼請政府提出理據,逐點指出,這才是所謂的理性溝通。

我覺得很奇怪,工程方面,你說你不懂,涉及的時間、資金到底是多了還是少了,也是未知數---請別忘記,清拆皇后、重置的費用是5千萬的---這不是一個小數目,到底保留是便宜些還是貴些,尚是未知之數,除非政府願意公開例如雨水渠的合約等,我們才知道賠多少錢,等等。

我覺得很奇怪,在根本未知是否超資或超多少的情況下,你仍是認為道理在政府那邊。

這已超越了以理據討論的範疇,直指價值觀。這個範圍,是在理性說服以外的。

我只能說,一個富公民抗命歷史的公共空間,拆咗就冇得返轉頭,拆咗就係拆咗,就一定係多個大商場,一定將中環最後一個透口氣封掉---繼添馬艦的新政府總部。這損失不是經濟數字能衡量的。

南韓政府可以斥巨資,把一條過往錯誤政策下填平的內河復修,難道能說,南韓因為著重保育就阻礙了經濟發展嗎。事實告訴我們,剛好相反。97金融風暴後,南韓是其中一個復甦最快的國家。為什麼?因為人家懂得尊重文化,重創意。而不是一味起高樓大廈這些硬件。而文化發展和城市規劃和空間使用,是絕對相關的。

熊一豆 said...

Stephen,你(在沒有提出任何理據之下)直斥靜坐人士為暴民,那麼言下之意,就是以理性的人自居了。

好,那麼,就請給出少少溝通的誠意和證明你有理性討論的基礎。

我在這裏有三個留言,從來也沒提過"回憶"這個論點,在整場保衛皇后的運動中,也沒有本土行動的成員提過"回憶"。

在肆意謾罵、中傷別人之前,請先理解別人在爭取什麼、為了什麼而爭取,否則一味的自說自話,只展示閣下的非理性,及沒有辯論的能力。

你迫使我去理解,你要重重商場下還迫不及待要多一個商場、你就是要多一座大商場把中環沿岸最後一個透氣口都封掉、極度渴望要一個解放軍碼頭。這就是你stephen想要的未來中環。

不過,並非人人都要這樣一個中環。或者閱讀英文,你會覺著愜意些,那就看看Daniel Wu的blog吧,他以英文書寫,可能你會看得入腦︰
http://www.alivenotdead.com/7/viewspace_17667.html

potato said...

一豆女士:

謝謝回應。我雖對工程技術方面一無所知,但在工作上也曾跟進過一些諸如外牆維修、室內裝修、更換供電設施等小型工程。我的經驗是如果在工程進行時作出重大改動,即使新方案的工程費用較原方案便宜,工程一樣會超支。因為,即使承建商未有進行原方案的工程,它可以說自己已為工程訂了材料、聘了人員、租了機器。委聘承建商的業主可能仍需要支付原本的工程費用(具體數目則需雙方討價還價,甚至對簿公堂),加上落實新方案所涉的費用,工程便會超支。政府現在很難公開說明需賠多少錢,因為這樣會不利於與承建商的討價還價(我相信承建商現在可能已經向政府索償,因為單是延期動工,已經是索償的理由)。
撇開應如可使用公帑這有關價值觀的問題,我在前文亦曾指出,即使拆了皇后碼頭,不代表有關的公共空間會消失。我們該怎樣利用填海後的中環新海邊,不同意見的人(例如你與Stephen)仍然可以繼續討論,尋求共識,無需一定要停工及費巨資將現有的基建設計作重大改動。

Florence said...

能夠自由討論,是很寶貴的,也明白希望說服別人接納一己觀點的熱切心情。只是, 當討論變為無止境的紛爭,那便很可惜了。

我想, 這場保衛皇后戰, 與其單就皇后碼頭事件爭論, 倒不如積極把握未來參與規劃我城的機會, 一起look forward吧。

Stephen said...

I want to drop this already but since you seem to indicate I am not listening or think that I do not understand your point clearly, let me give it another try:

- "直斥靜坐人士為暴民" I believe I never use the word "暴民", in chinese nor english. I simply refer to them as "yelling, screaming, pushing, and calling name". To me, "暴民" mean people cause "暴動", they didn't. However, if you consider "yelling, screaming, pushing, and calling name" is "暴民", then it is your understanding, not mine.

- I simply stated that I do not have any memory assoicate to the Queen's Pier, nothing more. Please note that I also did not say "本土行動" use "集体回憶" or "Memory" as one of their reason to keep the Pier. I said the "Media" did, unless, of course, you are one of the Media, are you?

- "在肆意謾罵、中傷別人之前,請先理解別人在爭取什麼、為了什麼而爭取,否則一味的自說自話,只展示閣下的非理性,及沒有辯論的能力。" I totally agree, but Did I really say nothing regarding my view? I believe I did. But you seem to getting pretty good at putting words into my mouth. So who is "中傷別人" here?

- I have little memory on this place, nor view this has a lots of historical value in it. Sure, the Queen arrived on this Pier and it was where we had the "cross habour" swimming starting point. But the original Pier is not here (it has been relocated before), and the only thing that probably worth keeping is the "牌匾", which I doubt is the original either. The structure is so simple, and it is hardly used by anyone nor had any function now a day. So whether keep it or "RELOCATE" it really is not a problem for me. It does not mean that I do not support "保育", it simply mean that I don't view this as an important place nor I agree the historical value in it. And if the government require to "RELOCATE" this somewhere for various of reason? So be it. Every people can have their different view, you will have your own value towards this Pier, and I respect that. I simply stated my view, and let you know that also quite a few people share my view when it come to the "value" of this "Pier" (When I mean "value", I do not mean $$, I mean both historical value and how important it is when people view this place)

- "迫不及待要多一個商場"? Hey, I didn't say that either, did I? I said I like what I saw in the report. It look like a mid level and a low level shopping mall and from my point of view, it seem fine with me. It doesn't mean I WANT another one, but I will not against it either. These are 2 different things.

- "解放軍碼頭", what is the problem? We used to have British war ship there as well (until 90s, after that they move to somewhere else if I remember correctly) so I fail to see the issue here. Are you trying to injecting fear to HKer that "China will one day send army to HK and crack down on us?" Oh, I am not saying you are trying to do it. Of course not, I am just asking to understand where you come from when you mention "解放軍碼頭". If you are so worry, where were you when the British War ship was parking over there? Did you complaint to the Government then?

- "就是要多一座大商場把中環沿岸最後一個透氣口都封掉", hrmm, again, I disagree. Yes, there will be 1-2 more buildings, but it will only be "Medium to Low Rise Commerical Development". Next to IFC and right outside a Jardine House there will be a Medium Rise, while the Low Rise Pedestrian (which I assume will more like a bridge where people will walk over the bridge toward the habour) will be outside "Status Square". I really don't see this as one of the "大商場" you keep mentioning. Is that mean I do not support environment protection? No, it simply mean that I don't see the affect of these 2 buildings as quote: " 把中環沿岸最後一個透氣口都封掉".

- Thank you for your URL to Daniel Wu's blog , I read it already, and I simply disagree with it. Like I said, I simply do not see the pier as such a "historical building", nor identify who we are. I certainly will not bring one of my foreign friend to the "Queen's Pier" and explain: "Oh, this is where the Queen arrive when she visit HK, blah blah blah". I am pretty sure most of my foreign friends will not be interested in taking picture of the pier. What so special about it? The "牌匾"? You know most of my friend when they visit HK, they want me to bring them to shop the gadgets. Their wifts would love to shop brand name shops. They will go Lamma Island and see the fish village there and try sea food. They will go to Lantau Island, Po Lin Monastery, Big Buddha. They will take photo of HK skyline, and all the amazing building like Bank of China, HSBC... etc. Never, (and I did have quite a few friends visit me from time to time) did anyone of those friends come and said: "Hey, I want to go to the Queen's Pier because I saw it in certain guide book and want to take picture", nor I will bring them there because I simply do not see they will interested in.

- "更多商場、更多交通流量". Obviously we have a different point of view about the "size" of the shopping mall. However, I do believe the P2 will improve the traffic problem that a lots people suffering when they need to go to Central. I do not see that 1-2 extra commerical building will cause a lots of "交通流量".

And why, why I disagree with you mean that I do not have "溝通的誠意和證明你有理性討論的基礎"? I have no "理性討論"?? I did not "提出任何理據之下" said that "靜坐人士為暴民"!? Which BTW, I did not call them "暴民". And also, I did provide my reason saying that why I DO NOT agree with them or I DO NOT agree with the way they express
their "passion". I disagree with the value of the "Queen's Pier", I disagree with them when they are pushing the police, I disagree with them when they are obviously FAKING it and CLAIM that the police are hurting them when cutting their chain. I disagree with them while they claim themselve protecting the Queen's Pier, but yet destorying the place and used red paint to paint on the floor and wall to express their view. I disagree with them when they stood dangerously on the edge, smoking in one hand, and threating to jump down. When they were threating to jump down, not only he put himself in dangerous, but also the police who were try to pull him back, and his mother will worry sick when they saw it on TV, did they think about it? Obviously not.


Finally, as I already stated, I disagree on how the Media handle this. All the people and friends that I have talked with, over 70% support government action and believe the reason (traffic, development... etc) justify the cause (RELOCATE the Pier). Some prefer not to relocate but because it is already done deal and past the LEGCO, we should respect the decision and move on. The support for relocating the pier, the development of the project, or simply move on, is clearly more than the people who oppsite it. But so far most of the Media report has been one sided.

Oh, and I am not a left wing either, I support "universal suffrage", and sooner we get it, the better. So please don't paint me as "Communist's Dog" simply because I think it is not a problem to have "解放軍碼頭" there. I am not saying you will paint me as a "Communist's dog", however, I believe you understand why I said this. Because this ain't the first time I had this kind of experience, and often time, people think that if I am not agree with them, I must have a "red background", wear a "red underwear", "communist's dog"... etc. which is pretty sad if you come to think of it. I don't want HK become Taiwan (no disrepect to any of my Taiwan friend :) )

Just my 2 cents.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...