Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Infrastructure & Town Planning

HK$7 billion HKBCF artificial island is moving

Sep 21st, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

The HK$7 billion Hong Kong Boundary Facilities (HKBCF) reclamation, a key element of the Hong Kong Zhuhai Macau bridge (HZMB) infrastructure, has encountered a serious problem – it is moving, or at least parts of it are.

Civil engineers familiar with the artificial island which is being built next to Hong Kong International Airport, say that part of the reclamation once moved 20 metres and there have been other movements in different parts of the island of up to 7 metres. The project is so sensitive that construction professionals involved with it say they have been forbidden to discuss it. The Highways Department has admitted in an email to HowardWinnReports.com that movements “of up to 6 or 7 metres” have occurred in various parts of the reclamation. This, the department says, is the result of adopting a non-dredging seawall construction method which is being used in Hong Kong for the first time. The Highways Department said in its email that the reclamation was unlikely to be completed by the end of 2016, which is already a year later than its original completion date. It is also a departure from a government press statement in November 2014 in response to media comment about possible delays, that the HKBCF would be completed by the end of 2016. HowardWinnReports.com has been told by engineers that much of the work at the site has halted and a review is underway to consider how to deal with the problem.

The HKBCF reclamation is being constructed by China Harbour Engineering Company at the Northeastern tip of the airport, opposite the Hong Kong SkyCity Marriott Hotel. It is a 150-hectare artificial island of which 130 hectares will be used for passenger and cargo clearing for traffic using the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao bridge, while the remaining 20 hectares will provide the landing point for the tunnel linking the artificial island to Tuen Mun. The HKBCF according to the HZMB website comprises cargo and passenger clearing and vehicle inspection facilities, offices for the Immigration Department and Customs & Excise, along with road networks, and a public transport interchange.

The HKBCF is a key hub without which traffic cannot flow across the new bridge. It is understood that attempts to prepare the foundation work for buildings to be erected on the site have had to be abandoned. When piles were driven into the bedrock on the site of the passenger clearance building, the piles were subsequently found to have moved by 100 millimetres which means they had broken or had bent, according to engineers.

When the reclamation contract was awarded back in December 2011, much was made of the environmentally friendly non-dredging sea wall construction that was to be employed in Hong Kong for the first time. The site of the reclamation comprises a considerable amount of soft mud. The conventional approach would have involved dredging this soft mud down to bedrock and filling it with marine sand, an approach which causes considerable ecological damage by disturbing the seabed, the quality of the water, and additional noise which is particularly disturbing to the pink dolphins in the area. Also there is no need to transport and dump the dredged marine mud causing ecological problems elsewhere or to find and transport tons of marine sand.

The non-dredge approach involved building a sea wall comprising big steel circular caissons with a diameter of about 30 metres. These were dropped into the sea three to four metres apart and joined by a flexible steel wall. Each caisson weighs about 450 tons empty and as the mud is dug out from the middle it drives itself down until it reaches a hard strata. Many of the reports on this project refer to the “tight construction period,’ since it is supposed to ‘dovetail’ with the commissioning of the HZMB. To speed up the settlement process a surcharge of additional weight is applied to the caissons and the soft material in the sea bed is squeezed out from under them. When the surcharge is withdrawn the hope is that the caissons have reached final settlement. Inevitably, engineers say, one part of the caisson hits hard strata first. Sometime there can be large difference in settlement at different parts of the caisson. In its email to HowardWinnReports.com, the Highways Department says the soft mud can vary in thickness from 10-30 metres. Because of the huge weights and pressures involved, the caissons can distort and sometimes tip and move. An engineer familiar with the project says that many of the caissons are still settling or sinking at a rate of 100 millimetres per month. The sea wall is not expected to fail but it may not keep the correct shape.

“The problem is that once again Hong Kong has allowed itself to be bullied into building this too quickly”, said one experienced engineering consultant. In the past Hong Kong has left reclaimed land to settle for between 5-15 years before building on it. “The problem with the HKBCF is that it hasn’t been left long enough and it is still settling.” Engineers are still considering what do about the problem. Meanwhile the clock is ticking for other projects that need to be built on top of the artificial island and to link to it. Contractors involved in erecting infrastructure on the building on the island are being kept waiting. Meanwhile Dragages Hong Kong is boring two 4.2 kilometre long two-lane road tunnels under the sea between Tuen Mun and the artificial island. At a contract price of HK$18.2 billion it is the biggest contract ever awarded in Hong Kong. It can’t complete the tunnelling until the reclamation is stable. If, as is possible, Dragages and the other contractors involved with HKBCF related project, are delayed then there are likely to be significant demands for compensation, further increasing the overall cost of the project.

In its email the Highways Department, no doubt with an eye on future criticisms and recriminations for adopting this non-dredge approach, is downplaying the project’s technical problems. “This kind of movement is normally found among large-scale reclamation projects adopting a non-dredge method in the main reclamation, with the HKBCF artificial island no exception,” the department said. However in explaining why the project will be delayed it says, “having regard to challenges such as unstable supply of materials, shortage of labour, restriction in airport height and constraints in environmental protection requirement, the HKBCF project may not be completed in time by end 2016.”

A consulting engineer said that while it was true that these were valid factors, “blaming the problems on these factors covers up the technical failures and gives them a nice excuse to justify delays which have been generated as a result of having to fix the engineering issues before being able to progress.

Large target population for man-made island

Sep 21st, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_print.asp?art_id=161433&sid=45222930

An artificial island between Hong Kong Island and Lantau may accommodate 400,000 to 700,000 people within the next 15 years, Secretary for Development Paul Chan Mo-po said.

Kinling Lo

Monday, September 21, 2015

An artificial island between Hong Kong Island and Lantau may accommodate 400,000 to 700,000 people within the next 15 years, Secretary for Development Paul Chan Mo-po said.

The project, to be located four kilometers from Hong Kong Island, was first mentioned in Chief Executive Leung Chun- ying’s policy address last year.

Chan said the government has moved on to the long- term strategic planning for the island, which is part of a framework set to give broad directions for land supply and town planning for a time horizon up to the year 2030.

The government is aiming to develop a core business district on the island in addition to Central and Kowloon East to promote economic development and provide job opportunities.

“Together with the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge and other developing infrastructure that links Lantau, the artificial island has the potential to become the third core business district in Hong Kong,” Chan said.

“This will help ease the traffic intensity in the other business areas and balance out the overall geographical distribution of the city’s economic activities.”

He said the island may form an East Lantau Metropolis together with other projects such as the third airport runway, Airport North Business District and Tung Chung new town.

Chan said its design is still at an initial stage and that a public consultation will be conducted.

But Save Lantau Alliance convener Eddie Tse Sai-kit said the group expects the scope of the consultation to be limited within practical arrangements and specific land use rather than one that engages the public in core discussions of the development direction.

“We suspect the building of this island may be one of Leung Chun-ying’s moves to hand in homework to the Beijing government rather than to meet local needs,” Tse said. “The whole of Lantau is set to be developed for tourism and not to suit the relaxed lifestyle of many Lantau residents.”

Tse added that the noise generated by challenges to the government’s plan of building the island has been much less compared with that arising from private land resumption.

“Not many people in Hong Kong are concerned about the public space of the sea,” Tse said.

Begone trams and TST promenade! What next? Eiffel Tower?

Sep 3rd, 2015
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

http://macaudailytimes.com.mo/hk-observer-begone-trams-and-tst-promenade-what-next-eiffel-tower.html

The old assertion “great minds think alike” – which triggers the riposte: “fools never differ” – comes to mind with recent ideas to ‘improve’ local iconic landmarks.

First of all there’s the astonishing proposal to remove green trams from Central to Admiralty to allow more smoke-spewing trucks and private cars into one of the city’s most polluted areas. Secondly there’s the similarly outrageous idea to put top tourist and residents’ draw, the Tsim Tsa-tsui Promenade, off limits for several years for an upgrade.

In the first case, the ridiculous reasoning is that tram-free roads will reduce traffic flow – but for whom? Cars and trucks. Get rid of the latter and the trams will run freely in a pedestrian-friendly zone in line with city centers in advanced cities worldwide. In the second case, the TST waterfront supposedly needs improving so who cares if all strollers are deprived of the magnificent harbor panorama? Who cares if many tourists stay away for the next three or more years until the work is completed – it’s progress stupid! Hang on, isn’t TST as a tourist magnet a package: the shopping, the buzz and the breathtaking harborside views? And what do we eventually get by closing off this star attraction? It’s not exactly earth-shattering; a performance venue and another restaurant or two. Meanwhile given the great largesse of the developer, pouring money into a no-profit venture, surely, along the line, there should be compensation n’est-ce pas? Well how about squeezing in another tower or two into the adjoining area? Déjà vu anyone?

Back to losing the trams. This piece of genius – to be official-planner considered – came from a retired member of their ilk who runs a consultancy, called “Intellects”. No, I didn’t make this up. Ease dire traffic congestion in central by removing the trams he says.

However an Environmental Protection Department study, under the co-remit of their undersecretary, the capable environmentalist, and former pan-democrat camp legislator, Christine Loh Kung-wai, came to the admirable conclusion that private cars were the main culprit in traffic congestion in Central. Heaven forbid the thought that senior town planners thinking of their own chauffeur-driven convenience at the expense of nearly everyone else? Banish the thought! How could hugely paid officials whose job it is to plan according to the welfare of the public sacrifice the needs and convenience of the millions for their benefit? Unthinkable.

The counter argument to the continued running of trams is that they are slow, rattling, nostalgic remnants of a bygone age that have outlived their usefulness. Why use that form of public transport when there’s the MTR? Convenience; more frequent stops than buses, and many more stations than the MTR. Then there’s the view for tourists and locals alike at a speed which allows passengers to take it in. Not least there’s the heritage value, an undoubted tourism asset is their age and uniqueness – the only two-deck tram service in the world. Lastly they are pollution-free road vehicles, and that’s where the world is going. Trams are coming back.

Let’s not forget that for civil service and government transport decision-makers MTR trumps trams. This proposal could be the thin end of the wedge. Then why not in future expand the tram-free zone; then why not get rid of the dinosaurs altogether?

If these plans go ahead there’s more at stake than temporary shut down of the promenade and part loss of the trams. I mean not everybody loves the TST Avenue of Stars and many people rarely of never take the trams, which are slow, rattly, and through their open windows expose people to highly polluted streets.

Trams for Clean Air

Aug 30th, 2015
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

unnamed (4)

Adapting to air pollution with clean air stands in China

Aug 24th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/24/adapting-to-air-pollution-with-clean-air-stands-in-china

John Abraham

As with climate change, both mitigation and adaptation are needed to tackle air pollution in China

A traffic police officer standing on an expressway is barely visible due to hazardous pollution levels, in Hebei province, China, 26 November 2014. Photograph: Diego Azubel/EPA

A traffic police officer standing on an expressway is barely visible due to hazardous pollution levels, in Hebei province, China, 26 November 2014. Photograph: Diego Azubel/EPA

To adapt or to mitigate? That is the question that faces governments and industries across the globe as the impacts of climate change and pollution become ever clearer. It turns out, we will need to do both. The longer we allow pollution to be freely emitted, the fewer and more expensive will be the choices remaining to us.

Pollution adaptation can take many forms, but it generally means dealing with a pollutant after it has been emitted, or it can mean changing infrastructure to make it more resilient to heavy rains, floods, or more intense storms.

One great example of adaptation is being developed in Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia by a major engineering company (Arup Engineering) and the CSR arm of a Hong Kong property developer (Sino Green). Arup and Sino Green are dealing with the environmental problem of localized airborne pollution.

In many parts of the world, airborne pollution levels are very high and can be elevated for long periods of time. These high levels of pollution can pose health problems to people and animals, particularly people with other health problems or those who are young or the elderly. In some cases, the airborne pollution levels can be at high levels for 8,000 hours (90%+) in a single year.

There are many sources of pollution; for Arup Engineering, whose East Asia headquarters is in Hong Kong, much of the pollution is from nearby heavy industries across the border in mainland China and from vehicle emissions. At other locations, high levels of airborne pollution may be caused by burning of wood or dung for fire, slash-and-burn agricultural practices (particularly for countries near Indonesia), or from other causes. But, regardless of the cause, companies such as Arup are trying to find ways to reduce human exposure even when the airborne pollution levels are high.

Arup is embarking on an effort to provide filtered air zones for people who are street side, perhaps waiting for public transportation. Much like a bus stop, the proposed structure (called City Air Purification System) provides clean air flow to create a cocoon around bystanders, shown in the following photograph.

Dr. Jimmy Tong (right) and colleagues from Sino Group. From right to left, Mr. David Ng, Executive Assistant to Chairman, Mr. Daryl Ng, Executive Director, and Mr. Vincent Lo, General Manager, showcasing a patent-pending clean-air stand in Hong Kong.

Dr. Jimmy Tong (right) and colleagues from Sino Group. From right to left, Mr. David Ng, Executive Assistant to Chairman, Mr. Daryl Ng, Executive Director, and Mr. Vincent Lo, General Manager, showcasing a patent-pending clean-air stand in Hong Kong.

The stand is able to accommodate approximately 20 people and washes them with filtered air, protecting them from particulates from passing traffic. The company has shown by both experiment and by numerical simulation (similar to a climate model), that the occupants breathe significantly healthier air.

Not only is the Arup/Sino Green structure very energy efficient, but by providing clean air to residents, it is possible to counteract the deleterious health effects on the human body, particularly the respiratory and cardiovascular system.

An installed Arup/Sino Green clean-air stand in Hong Kong.

An installed Arup/Sino Green clean-air stand in Hong Kong.

I asked the lead inventor, Dr. Jimmy Tong (with whom I worked in the past) about this project. He told me,

The system tested in Hong Kong had demonstrated an effectiveness of reducing particulate matter by 30–70%, and the system is moving to Beijing, China for further testing. Its success could also have huge effects when used in other cities around the world struggling with air pollution.

My view is that it is always better to deal with pollution by reducing the emissions. Adaptation is more expensive and less certain than mitigation. However, when the will to mitigate is not found, adaptation is the only plan B. Arup/Sino Green’s device is a bit of a window on the future to local solutions for a global problem.

Disclaimer: I have no financial interests in Arup Engineering nor Sino Green or in any of their products or services.

Kai Tak Cruise Terminal is a stellar example of government misallocation

Aug 8th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

Regina Ip says that although the Hong Kong government insists it prefers to let the market allocate resources, the disaster of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal bears witness otherwise

China’s “One Belt, One Road” strategy awakened little interest in Hong Kong after President Xi Jinping put forward the ideas for a Silk Road economic belt in September 2013 while on a visit to Kazakhstan, and for a “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” the following month in Indonesia. Gradually, as news of the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank spread, civil society organisations in support of the initiative mushroomed while talks and seminars on the subject became daily events.

Clearly, Hong Kong should join the infrastructure bank, probably along the lines of its membership in the Asian Development Bank.

Government officials are no doubt working behind the scenes on the format of Hong Kong’s participation. Beyond planning its participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and canvassing views from business leaders on how Hong Kong could benefit from China’s latest mega-strategy, it is unlikely that the government would play a leading role in spearheading Hong Kong’s involvement.

Plagued by poor transport links, the facility continues to attract few local visitors, and the deserted lounges and shopping areas attest to its lack of attraction

That is because if the financial secretary’s words are to be taken as gospel, the government would refrain from playing any significant role in mapping out Hong Kong’s participation.

At a recent international forum on “One Belt, One Road”, lifting words from the government’s tired, old “free market” playbook, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah stressed that “we must abide by market rules, and let the market decide what is the most efficient way to allocate resources, to pursue reasonable returns, and to manage risks in a prudent manner. The government, on the other hand, should play the part of a facilitator, and engage itself in a more active role only when the market has found it difficult to operate.”

The financial secretary’s pronouncements were typical, stock phrases drafted by bureaucrats who have stopped thinking about whether the narrative still rings true or is still relevant. Is it really true that the Hong Kong government has always left it to the market to decide how best to allocate resources and to pursue reasonable returns?

The government can certainly be credited with prudent financial management and risk avoidance (not necessarily a good thing for an economy in need of more dynamic growth), but it is definitely untrue that the government has always avoided intervening in the market or directly allocating resources.

While the government has few “winners” to speak of, it has an unenviable track record of picking “losers”. A case in point is the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal. At 850 metres long and three storeys high, ever since the first cruise liner, the Mariner of the Seas, called at the terminal in June 2013, this sprawling, snake-like structure along the Kai Tak waterfront has sparked more and more queries over its underutilisation, whether by locals or tourists.

For locals, the location and the design of the terminal are such that getting to the restaurants, the duty-free shopping area, the rooftop garden and the bicycle lane is a hassle. Plagued by poor transport links, the facility continues to attract few local visitors, and the deserted lounges and shopping areas attest to its lack of attraction.

While the number of cruise ships calling at Kai Tak has doubled since its opening, the numbers are still low, and the terminal practically goes into hibernation during the winter months. At the price tag of HK$8.2 billion, in hindsight more and more taxpayers are querying why the government had decided to gamble taxpayers’ money on developing Hong Kong as a “cruise hub”.

Hong Kong compares poorly with the Mediterranean, Singapore and even Shanghai as the hub of cruises with multiple port days on any voyage. Hong Kong’s nearest ports, whether north or south of the city, are a few sea days away. Recently, when a cruise ship destined for Osaka diverted to Vietnam to avoid stormy weather, it testified to Hong Kong’s disadvantageous geographical location on the South China coast.

Even if cruise visits could be increased, it is still questionable whether the return is worth the investment. Cruise passengers typically do not stay in hotels when they dock, and have limited time to shop around. Unlike Mediterranean ports such as Positano or Taomina, both in Italy, where a single-day outing would be adequate, Hong Kong, with plenty of diversity and interesting historical and natural sites, warrants a visit lasting two to three days.

It is unlikely that the per capita spending of cruise ship passengers would come anywhere close to that of visitors in the “meetings, incentives, convention and entertainment” category.

Even more troubling is the fact the government has not only thrown away HK$8.2 billion, but has also misallocated to the terminal 7.6 hectares of prime, waterfront land that could have been put to far more productive use. In a land-hungry city such as Hong Kong, the opportunity cost arising from such misallocation is unforgivable.

Who says the government does not engage in allocating resources? What it has failed to do is to allocate resources smartly, based on a well-thought-through and holistic vision of what it wants the city to be in the future.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is a legislator and chair of the New People’s Party

Source URL: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1847515/kai-tak-cruise-terminal-stellar-example-government

Nam Sang Wai: The Developer’s Case

Jul 25th, 2015
by AdminCTA.
No comments yet

http://harbourtimes.com/2015/07/25/nam-sang-wai-the-developers-case/

Progress is sometimes the best means to preserve. Mr Wan Man-yee, who has been the architect behind the Nam Sang Wai development plan, shares with HT his views on the project and sustainable development.

Progress is sometimes the best means to preserve. Mr Wan Man-yee, who has been the architect behind the Nam Sang Wai development plan, shares with HT his views on the project and sustainable development.

The never-ending tug-of-war between conservationists and developers in Hong Kong finds its latest battlefield in the Nam Sang Wai wetlands as the public comment period of a proposal to build about 2,530 flats in the area ended this Friday (July 24). While opposition groups have reportedly submitted more than 1,500 letters of objection to the Town Planning Board (the Board) over the past three days, the developer, Nam Sang Wai Development, is also making a case for articulated enhancement.

The company is jointly owned by Henderson Development and the Fu family’s KHI Holdings Group, with the latter taking charge of the latest proposal.

HT speaks to Mr Wan Man-yee (溫文儀), a prominent general practice surveyor who has overseen the project ever since its first attempt to get pass the Board in the 90s, as he explains why the reviewed proposal is able to address all questions in order to achieve sustainable development.

All “defensible”

The proposed development area consists of 179 hectares (ha) of land in Nam Sang Wai and Lut Chau. The latter, in particular, is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that lies within the designated Ramsar site under an international convention for wetland preservation. The current third proposal is to zone 11.6 ha of land at the southern tip of Nam Sang Wai, adjacent to the Yuen Long Industrial Estate, for residential use, whereas 140.7 ha of net wetland would be preserved.

A map showing Lut Chau (green area north) and Nam Sang Wai (green area south)

A map showing Lut Chau (green area north) and Nam Sang Wai (green area south)

“Compared with our previous plan in 2013, the residential footprint has been reduced by 70% while the number of residential units will grow from 1,600 to about 2,530 without changing the residential gross floor area (GFA), 20% of which would become small units pending government approval to come under the ‘Home Ownership Scheme’. As Nam Sang Wai has long been a winter home for various bird species including Great Cormorants, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Herons, we have conducted thorough studies for years to map the flight paths of these birds to ensure that the settlements will not disturb their livelihoods.” Mr Wan says.

The veteran project manager is also confident that his master plan will comply with all ethical standards through the achievement of ‘no net loss of wetland’ principle upheld by the Board.

“The net wetland area will be maintained by rearranging fish ponds and reducing or removing water bunds. Meanwhile, more than 600 trees will be planted for compensation and landscaping purposes. We have also chosen suitable trees and bamboos to provide more nesting places and foods for the birds.”

“In the words of Mr Fu [Adrian Fu Hau-chak, CEO of the KHI Holdings], every single point we make in the proposal is defensible.”

Develop to preserve

Developers are almost always associated with greedy landowners trying to make the most out of their conspirative schemes, whereas property development is placed at the other end of eco-preservation. The Nam Sang Wai plan is taking no less such accusations from local residents, green groups and political parties.

Yuen Long district councillor Wong Wai-yin (黃偉賢) from the Democratic Party, for example, has collected 1,581 letters of objection in the last three days of the public comment period. But Mr Wan suggests these oppositions tend to be misguided.

“One of the major misunderstandings is that the wetlands would be best preserved when kept idle. While Nam Sang Wai is indeed a rare nature reserve, it is not a pristine wetland. It is in fact a large artificial wetland resulting from agricultural development of brackish paddy fields, and gei-wei (shrimp) and fish ponds. More recently, the wetland has also fallen victim of illegal dumping, with trucks coming in and out of the supposedly peaceful paradise for bird-lovers. It has been indicated that an ecological degradation is evident.” he explains.

“Accordingly, our plan is to undertake all capital expenditures of the establishment of two conservation sites in Nam Sang Wai and Lut Chau, which will be managed by an independent NGO with the support of the statutory Environment and Conservation Fund (ECF). The Lut Chau Natural Reserve will be similar to that of Mai Po, with a dedicated management and development committee to ensure ecological monitoring of human activities. In addition, we will donate a part of the project’s profit to the ECF to sustain the enhancement works.”

“It has been indicated that an ecological degradation is evident.”

“It has been indicated that an ecological degradation is evident.”

When asked if the developer had tried to clarify the point to district councillors and lawmakers before, Mr Wan can not help but laugh, “Be it Yea or Nay, they do not seem to have taken our arguments seriously. For them, there is simply no room for contemplation.”

Social responsibility

Mr Wan, who was a member of the Elderly Commission and is now serving the Housing Authority, is also proposing the setting up of a care centre in the residential area, with a public park next to it, in collaboration with the Hong Kong Alzheimer’s Disease Association (HKADA) and the Intellectually Disabled Education and Advocacy League.

Chairperson of the Intellectually Disabled Education and Advocacy League (IDEAL), Ms Nora Fung (馮梁綺萍), says, “The needs of moderately and mildly mentally handicapped persons have long been neglected. It is estimated that the waiting time for a hostel place for these persons can be as long as ten years.”

“A care centre in Nam Sang Wai offered by the developer is our only feasible option at the moment to help those families in need.”

That being said, whether social responsibility is more important than environmental sustainability would be another debate.

Last call

The Board will call for a meeting to discuss the proposal on August 21. When asked if the developer would put forth yet another master plan with more concessions, be the current one rejected, Mr Wan says this would depend on the cost of premium to be paid for changing land use.

“That being said, the current plan is able to address environmental concerns while providing housing units to people from different classes. It is not a loss of the developer but rather the society if this proposal is to be rejected.” he concludes.

Having green features in Hong Kong buildings should not be mandatory

May 12th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

I refer to the articles (“Green certification fees rise sharply”, April 27), (“Developers laugh all the way to the bank”, April 28), and (“Monitor green building scheme”, May 4).

The building sector accounts for 90 per cent of electricity consumption and over 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Green Building Council was established to foster green building development and preserve the planet for future generations. One aspect of our work is to develop and manage BEAM Plus, a green building assessment and certification system tailor-made for Hong Kong.

The Buildings Department’s policy of offering gross floor area (GFA) concessions existed long before BEAM Plus was launched. The GFA concession provides developers with the resources to incorporate green features in buildings, benefiting occupants and the environment. If, for example, a developer chooses to install solar hot water panels, it needs a larger tank to store hot water.

Extra space is required, and the GFA concession encourages developers to incorporate such green features without decreasing the saleable area of the property.

The government applied a cap of 10 per cent on the GFA concession in 2011, while adding BEAM Plus certification to the list of criteria that developers must satisfy to qualify for the concession.

However, BEAM Plus certification is just one of a number of criteria. Developers were never granted a GFA concession simply by achieving certification.

Some may think that incorporating green features in buildings should be mandatory, but this would obstruct the green building movement. Building designs take into account the surrounding environment and other variables, so decisions must be made on a project-by-project basis. It’s also important to remember that the green building industry is a fast-moving sector. New ideas constantly emerge, and BEAM Plus has the flexibility to adapt to rapid advances in technology and changing market needs, whereas mandatory regulations would not.

The BEAM Plus registration fee is set fairly, according to project scale. It represents a very small portion of the construction cost. The fee is also used to fund the development of BEAM Plus, other research and development, and green building training, education and promotion. The Hong Kong Green Building Council is non-profit making and our income is invested back into the green building movement.

I hope that we, with the government, the industry and the public, can continue to build a greener Hong Kong.

Conrad Wong Tin-cheung, chairman, Hong Kong Green Building Council Limited

Source URL: http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1794356/having-green-features-hong-kong-buildings-should-notbe-mandatory

Hong Kong developers laughing all the way to the bank with green scheme

Apr 28th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

Talk about setting the fox to guard the henhouse. Under the guise of urban and environmental improvement, developers have been able to win concessions of up to 10 per cent of gross floor area in their projects without paying a premium if they satisfy certain “green” requirements or merely claim to do so.

And who certifies their green credentials? The BEAM Society, part of the Green Building Council, enjoys complete discretion and total unaccountability when it comes to certifying builders under its BEAM Plus assessment scheme.

It gets worse. Many of the society’s directors have close business ties to the property and construction sectors. An internal probe, the results of which the society has refused to disclose, looked in 2013 into complaints about the lack of fairness, transparency and accountability in the way the scheme was administered.

Since its inception in 2011, 260 development projects have been granted the exemption under the BEAM scheme. You can imagine how much money developers save – or premiums lost to the government coffers and therefore taxpayers – with those 10 per cent concessions.

But what do developers do that is so great to deserve massive paybacks? Apparently, more efficient energy use, better site ventilation and indoor air quality, less water consumption and enhanced waste management. Shouldn’t developers be doing all those things already? Why do taxpayers have to subsidise them? But the scheme already represents some regulatory restraints.

Before its introduction, developers could claim extra gross floor area without preset limits by adding amenities and green features. The Buildings Department and Development Bureau seem perfectly fine with the scheme. No doubt lucrative postretirement jobs await quite a few of their officials. The ICAC has recommended turning the assessment society into a statutory body to make it accountable. That is a start and would require drawing up a bill to pass through the legislature. It’s probably the best we could do in Hong Kong.

A more sensible solution would be to make green standards mandatory. But given the developers’ lobbying power, there is a snowball chance in hell for that.

Source URL: http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1778232/hong-kong-developers-laughing-all-way-bankgreen-scheme

Fees for controversial green building accreditation scheme set to rise sharply

Apr 27th, 2015
by Editor.
No comments yet

The Green Building Council is cashing in on its right to accredit environmentally friendly building projects, having announced an increase in registration fees that will take them to double the level of two years ago.

The not-for-profit body is responsible for certifying buildings that have undergone BEAM Plus assessment – governmentrecognised tests developments must undergo if developers are to claim green construction incentives. The assessment itself is carried out by BEAM Society (BSL), another not-for-profit group which developed BEAM Plus.

Critics said the fee rise – for which the council has not offered any explanation – demonstrated the problems of leaving a government-recognised accreditation scheme in the hands of a private organisation that was not subject to public scrutiny.

Council chairman Conrad Wong Tin-cheung said it was granted the right to use the BEAM Plus rating tool to develop related services under an agreement with BSL. BSL was one of four industry organisations that helped set up the council in 2009.

However, a source familiar with the situation said the council had “nothing to do with the development, assessment and administration of the BEAM Plus scheme”, but forced BSL to grant it the right to “sign” the certificates and thus pocket the registration fee.

Registration fees for extra-large, mega and exceptional-scale projects will increase to HK$300,000, HK$400,000 and HK$600,000, respectively, from June – double what they were in June 2013.

The council also sets the assessment fees BSL can claim. Assessment fees for new extra-large and mega-projects will rise by 25 per cent and 35 per cent, respectively, from June, to HK$841,000 and HK$1,237,300.

The fees have proved lucrative for both organisations since the Buildings Department officially recognised BEAM Plus assessment as the accreditation scheme for its incentive programme in April 2011.

The council’s financial statements for 2013 show its registration fee income more than doubled to HK$9.88 million that year, from HK$4.38 million in 2012.

BSL also saw its turnover surge, from HK$7.45 million in 2012 to HK$13.2 million in 2013.

The council says on its website that it reserves the right to adjust both certification and assessment fees, but did not detail the reasons for the latest increase.

raising-the-roof

[1]”They are running like a private club with board members setting their own game rules and doing as they please without being regulated by the government and being held accountable to the public,” said another source familiar with the situation. “It seems like this small circle of close allies is taking advantage of the government.”

Founded in 1996 by construction and real estate professionals, BSL developed BEAM assessment tools for benchmarking green buildings.

However, insiders say things have become complicated after BSL restructured itself to join hands with three other organisations, including the Construction Industry Council, to establish the Green Building Council in 2009.

The government’s decision to officially recognise BEAM plus accreditation has increased the thirst for power and personal gain of some inside the organisations, a source said.

Democratic Party lawmaker Wu Chi-wai urged the government to take steps to plug potential loopholes by either placing both bodies under its scrutiny or overhauling the whole incentive scheme.

Source URL: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/1777096/fees-controversial-green-building-accreditation-scheme-set

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →