designing changer o u n d t a b le s er ies
設計．城市．可持續發展
DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY

關於香港設計中心

向社會推廣設計的精神是香港設計中心主要職責。香港設計中心乃於2002年由業

About Hong Kong

界支持下成立的非牟利機構，擔當政府策略伙伴，以推動香港成為亞洲設計之都

Design Centre
www.hkdesigncentre.org

為目標。其公共使命為︰（一）提倡廣泛及策略地應用設計為企業和社會創造價值；（二）推廣及表揚傑出的設計；以及（三）教育各界專業人士和公眾，讓他們加強透過設計與創新的思維，促進社會
各領域可持續發展。

Design for Society is the major undertaking of Hong Kong Design Centre(HKDC). HKDC is a non-profit organisation and a strategic partner of the HKSAR Government in developing Hong Kong as an international design hub in
Asia. Since 2002, HKDC has been on a public mission to(1) champion strategic and wider use of design for creating business value andcommunity benefits;(2) promote and celebrate design excellence; and(3) educate the professions and the community to be resourceful champions forsustained developments through design and innovation.   

2設計驅動改變圓桌論壇
designing change roundtable series

設計．城市．可持續發展

4

DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY

5

與會者

陳志毅 Antony CHAN

6

discussants

布路施 Patrick BRUCE

前言

preamble

馮宜萱 Ada FUNG

7

林筱魯 Andrew LAM
利德裕 Edmund LEE Tak-yue

8

李躍華 Francis LEE
林雲峰 Bernard LIM

9Peter Cookson SMITH
Ester van STEEKELENBURG

10姚嘉姍 Marisa YIU
討論摘要

discussion summary

設計．城市．可持續發展12design • city • sustainability

22

此圓桌論壇於2013年6月舉行

This roundtable took place in June 2013目錄 Contents 3

設計驅動改變圓桌論壇
designing change roundtable series

前言
設計是

設計．城市．可持續發展
時代精神是指某一時代的思潮和文化氛圍，包含那個時代的獨特世界觀體
驗、品味觸覺、集體意識和無意識。它們可歸納為某社會某一個時代的獨有…我們的思維，文化。

…生活和文化，

無可否認，社會上一切人類活動，不論是一國、一城、一地的教育、經濟、…我們的經濟，…城市和未來。

環境以至社會和經濟發展政策的制訂，都少不了文化的身影。
設計的價值，在於致力透過不同的設計範疇，來推動社會進步。它以滿足社
會需要為經，以有效運用資源為緯。
在實踐之時，設計更是社會文化的一種重要宣示。設計帶來更美好的生活，
是我們的基因、生活、經濟和未來的一部分。
今日各個國家和城市都在追求成為創意型經濟體，香港也以創新和進步的城
市自居，當中設計的文化和視野舉足輕重。香港社會要求進、要生活豐盛、
要維持競爭力，私營、公營和政府機構就必須多提倡並廣納設計的文化和視野，發揮創意，靈活應變，從而帶來更多正面的改變。
作為一個推動香港設計與創新思維的機構，香港設計中心啟動了「設計驅動
改變圓桌論壇」系列，雲集一群文化、經濟、決策、策略和政策相關的業界
精英和領袖，就一系列精挑細選的設計相關課題，發表各自的意見和見解。
圓桌論壇中所累積的意見，將會記錄在案，並匯編成一份以設計為主題的意
見書，發給商界、政府、專業界別和學界的主要持份者、決策者以及具影響力的人士，讓他們了解和認識設計在推動香港成為區內一個創意經濟體的過程中，所擔當的重要角色。

4 前言 preamble

PREAMBLE
DESIGN is about…Our Thinking,…Our Living,…Our Culture,…Our Economy,…Our City,…Our Future.

DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABLITY
The Spirit of the Times (Zeitgeist) denotes the intellectual and cultural climateof a particular era, which can be linked to an experience of a certain worldview,
sense of taste, collective consciousness and unconsciousness. All this will form theculture of a society of an era when boiled down.
Culture touches all aspects of human activities in society, from education, economy, environment to the social and economic policy formulation of a country, acity or a place.
Through different aspects of DESIGN, DESIGN value is illustrated as a commitment to make a change for the betterment of a society, for it is believed that DESIGN is capable of meeting social needs and advocating effective use of resources.
In practice, DESIGN is an important cultural manifestation of a society. DESIGN
leads to a better life and is part of our fabric, DNA, living, economy and future.
While countries and cities around the world try to foster their own creative-based
economies, Hong Kong too claimed itself a city of innovation and progression,of which DESIGN culture and vision is pivotal. Hong Kong needs to maintain its
progression, wealth, and competitiveness. To achieve that, both public and private
sectors must join hands together to advocate and incorporate design culture andvision in their work, and remain resilient along the way.
In line with Hong Kong Design Centre’s mission to promulgate DESIGN andinnovation advocacy for Hong Kong, the Designing Change Roundtable Series
is aimed at convening leaders whose work is dedicated to the development of culture, economy, strategies and policies, to share their view and insights on a seriesof carefully selected topics, driven by DESIGN.
The views gathered from the roundtable discussion will be documented and compiled into a DESIGN-focused opinion paper to be distributed to key stakeholders,
decision-makers and influencers in the business, government, professional andacademic communities for advancing their appreciation and understanding of the
key role that DESIGN played in the process of strategy and policy-making andin propelling Hong Kong to become a creative and progressive economy in theregion.

前言 preamble 5

與會者
discussants(以英文姓氏排序 In alphabetical order of surname)

Antony CHAN

Patrick BRUCE

香港室內設計協會主席

歐華爾公司董事

ChairmanHong Kong Interior Design Association

Director
The Oval Partnership Limited

CREAM 設計事務所由陳志毅先生成立于1998年，陳先生為英國及法國註冊建築師，曾參與歐洲聯盟議會大樓的建築設計，並在德國議會
大樓建築設計比賽中贏獲第五名。2003年英國Andrew Martin 將陳志
毅先生列為全球最頂尖的50位室內設計師之一。

布路施擁有40年設計經驗，包括諮詢、工業製造和教育範疇。他在
英國Leicester Polytechnic獲得工業設計學士，並在Cranfield大學獲得
工商管理碩士。他是英國Chartered Society of Designers的合夥人。
他在英國、南非和亞洲有豐富的經驗。他居於香港25年。他曾為英
國Terence Conran爵士工作，在1988到1992年期間是Conran設計
香港太平洋區管理董事。布路施是歐華爾集團創始人之一及歐華爾公司董事，該公司1992年成立。他也是INTEGER Intelligent andGreen Ltd.公司董事，該公司2012年為歐華爾公司所擁有。

CREAM 以創新概念和創意思考為設計宗旨，強調時尚氣息、都市脈
搏、藝術和生活元素融合的風格，並注重集合線條構圖美，為客戶建
立鮮明的品牌形象。
CREAM 的作品屢獲殊榮，其中部分主要作品有：蘭桂坊酒店、Hotel
De Edge Yoho Midtown 銷售空間、大連時代廣場、Miele Lab、香港
設計廊等。

Antony Chan, Founder of CREAM, is a registered architect in both UK &France. He has participated in the European Parliament building project
and won the fifth prize in the International Competition for Urban Design
Ideas for the German parliamentary quarters. In 2003, He was included in
the list of the world’s Top 50 designers by the prestigious Andrew Martin
International Interior Design Awards. CREAM, established in 1998, with
Innovative concepts and thinking, advocates combination of modern urban style, art and living elements, illustrating geometric beauty in design,
resulting in impressive brand images for clients. CREAM’s projects haveachieved various awards, the accolade projects, to cite a few, are: LKF,
Hotel De Edge, Yoho Midtown sales space, Dalian Times Square, Miele
Lab, HK Design Gallery.

香港知專設計學院(HKDI)於2005年成立前，他已是設計學院諮詢部
課程評估和提高委員會的成員。他目前是諮詢部的成員，也是DIAB的成員。他數年來擔任設計學院的校外監考員。布路施亦是香港理工大學設計學院工業諮詢委員會的成員。

Patrick Bruce has 40 years of design experience in the consultancy, industrial manufacturing and education sectors. He received his BA in
Industrial Design from Leicester Polytechnic in the UK and his MBAfrom Cranfield University. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Society of
Designers in the UK. He has substantial experience in the UK and South
Africa, and in Asia. He is permanently resident in Hong Kong where
he has lived for 25 years. He worked for Sir Terence Conran in the UK
as Commercial Director for Conran Design Group, and was Managing
Director of Conran Design Pacific in Hong Kong from 1988 to 1992. Mr
Bruce is a founding member of the Oval Partnership group of companies and is a Director of the Oval Partnership Ltd, established in 1992.
He is a Director of INTEGER Intelligent and Green Ltd., following its
acquisition by the Oval Partnership in 2012.
Patrick has assisted the Hong Kong Design Institute (HKDI) in an external capacity, serving as a member of the Curriculum Review and Improvement Sub-committee under the Design Institute Advisory Board
from 2005 until the opening of the institute. He is currently a member ofthe Design Advisory Board, and also of the DIAB at the HKDI. He has
acted as External Examiner for the Institute for several years. Patrickis also a member of the HK Polytechnic University School of Design’s
School Industry Advisory Council.

陳志
毅
6 與會者 discussants

布路施Ada FUNG

Andrew LAM

香港建築師學會主席(2013-2014年度)

香港古物諮詢委員會主席

President
Hong Kong Institute of Architects (2013-2014)

Chairman
Antiquities Advisory Board

馮宜萱是建築師學會2013-2014年度主席，香港亞太經合組織建築師
監測委員會2012/13-2014/15年度主席，及香港建築師註冊管理局
2010/11-2011/12年度主席。

林筱魯先生長期從事城市規劃的研究及專業事務和培訓教育工作，
並參與了無數的規劃建設項目。項目性質與規模跨度甚大，專業足
跡遍及中國，中東及亞洲各地。他於2002年，獲香港特區政府委任
為市區重建局的執行董事，全權負責規劃及發展事務，主管總值二
千多億港元的舊城改造政策及項目。2006年加入服務全球的易道環
境規劃設計有限公司，出任亞洲總部之董事總經理。2008年加入永靈通金融，出任其房地產發展業務的執行董事，負責營運其房地產
投資開發項目，基金投資總額餘十億美元，涉及中國多個一、二綫
城市的舊城改造及綜合開發，總樓面餘六百萬平米。林筱魯現為安
石集團 (控股) 有限公司主席。

馮女士為香港特別行政區房屋署副署長，掌管房屋署的發展及建築
處，負責督導各個層面的工作，包括香港公營房屋發展的採購、設計、建築、素質、安全和環境保護各方面，制定工作政策。
馮女士是專業建築師，活躍於香港建築師業界和建築界。

Ada Fung is the President of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects (2013- 2014) and Chairperson of the APEC Architect Monitoring Committeeof Hong Kong (2012/13 – 2014/15), Past Chairperson of the Architects
Registration Board (2010/11 – 2011/12).
In her career as Deputy Director of Housing, Fung supervises the Development & Construction Division of the Housing Department, overseeing
all facets of public housing development work in Hong Kong from planning and design to construction.
She is a registered architect and an active member in the architectural field
as well as in the construction industry in Hong Kong.

事業以外，他亦積極投入各類社會服務。於1998年獲選為香港規劃師學會會長，亦為香港規劃師註冊管理局的首屆理事。多年來，參
與多項政府公職，近年尤其關注環境，古蹟保育及文化發展。先後被委任為西九文化區管理局董事，活化歷史建築諮詢委員會成員，
長遠房屋策略督導委員會委員等要職，文化葫蘆董事，香港海事青年團理事會成員，大律師紀律審裁團成員。

Andrew Lam is a veteran town planner involved deeply in professional
research and education in parallel with his practice. His professional
footprint covers a wide range of projects of various scales and natures,from all over China and Asia to the Middle East and many otherplaces. He was appointed by the HKSAR Government in 2002 as
Executive Director of the Urban Renewal Authority to take charge ofplanning and development. In 2006, he joined EDAW as Principle andHead of Asia Headquarters. In 2008, Mr Lam joined Winnington Capital as Executive Director (Property Development) responsible for its
investment portfolio primarily in China. Mr Lam is now the Chairmanof AN Group (Holdings) Limited.
Business aside, Mr Lam has dedicated most of his time to community
services. He was elected President of the Hong Kong Institute of Planners in 1998 and was a member of the Planners Registration Board
when it was first established. He was appointed to serve on numerous
advisory and statutory bodies over the years, especially those related toenvironment, heritage conservation and culture. He is currently Board
Member of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority, Memberof the Advisory Committee on Revitalisation of Historic Buildings,
Member of the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee,
Director of the Board of Hulu Culture, Council Member of the Hong
Kong Sea Cadet Corps, and Member of the Barristers Disciplinary
Tribunal Panel.

馮
宜
萱

林
筱
魯
與會者 discussants 7

與會者
discussants
Edmund LEE Tak-yue ( 論壇主持 moderator)

Francis LEE

香港設計中心行政總裁

香港設計師協會主席

Executive Director
Hong Kong Design Centre

ChairmanHong Kong Designers Association

利德裕現為香港設計中心行政總裁，獲授英國皇家藝文協會院士名
銜，並擔任元創方董事委員、香港工業總會轄下之香港設計委員會
委員、香港品牌發展局派任理事、香港貿易發展局設計諮詢委員會委
員，以及理大賽馬會社會創新設計院國際顧問委員會委員。利氏亦出任香港高等科技教育學院設計學院諮詢委員會主席。他身兼多項公職，包括多個專業管理組織及服務機構之主席及委員。

香港知名室內設計師李躍華，於1987年開展他的設計和建築事業，
曾在多間有名的建築和室內設計公司打滾，擁有豐富的國際經驗。
李氏多年來負責過多個國際企業的大規模設計及建築項目，當中客戶遍佈世界各地。他亦積極參與及推動香港的創意工業和設計教
育，培育未來設計精英。

Edmund Lee is a Fellow of the Royal Society for the encouragement ofarts, commerce and manufacturers. He currently serves as Director of
PMQ, Member of the Design Council of the Federation of Hong Kong
Industries, Hong Kong Brand Development Council, Advisory Committee
on Design, Licensing and Marketing of Hong Kong Trade Development
Council, and the International Advisory Committee of The Jockey Club
Design Institute for Social Innovation. He also serves as Chairman of the
Design Faculty Advisory Committee of Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong. Other public duties include chairmanship or
membership of a number of professional management bodies and service
organisations.

他現為李躍華規劃設計有限公司的創辦人，以及擔任香港設計師協會的主席。另外，他亦創辦了FRA Limited (華譽規劃設計有限公司)，及文化共和品牌 (Culture Republic)。
他畢業於香港理工大學設計學院及後獲得設計學碩士。於2009年獲
頒香港十大傑出設計師。他是香港貿易發展局設計、市場及品牌授權服務顧問委員會成員，亦為香港學術及職業資歷評審局學科擔任
專家。

Francis Lee started his design career by working for a number of famous
architectural and interior design firms since 1987. He has gained a broad
spectrum of international experience in both interiors and architectural
practice. Mr Lee has also led many large-scale architectural and design
projects, with clients coming from multi-national corporate and brands
from across the world. He is also dedicated to promoting creative industry and design education of Hong Kong, nurturing local design talents.
He is the founder and managing director of Francis Lee & Associates
Limited and the chairman of the Hong Kong Designers Association. He
also established FRA Limited and the brand “CULTURE REPUBLIC”.
He graduated from The School of Design of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, obtaining his Master of Design degree. He was awarded
as Hong Kong Ten Outstanding Designers in 2009. He is a member ofthe Design, Marketing & Licensing Services Advisory Committee ofthe Hong Kong Trade Development Council, and a subject specialist of Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic & Vocational
Qualifications.

利德裕8 與會者 discussants李躍華Bernard LIMPeter Cookson SMITH

香港城市設計學會創會會長

香港規劃師學會主席

Founding President
The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design

President
The Hong Kong Institute of Planners

林雲峰為 AD+RG建築設計及研究所有限公司總監。 林氏是香港建築
師學會前會長、香港城市設計學會創會會長、香港房屋委員會建築小組主席、香港可持續發展委員會委員。他亦曾擔任古物諮詢委員、旅遊業策略小組委員、城市規劃委員及能源諮詢委員。

施倍德博士是一位建築、規劃和城市設計師。他於1977年定居香港，並創立了雅邦設計有限公司。雅邦為東南亞最早期的規劃、城市及景觀設計專業顧問之一，在過去35年承接超過2000個項目，榮
獲超過100個本地及國際獎項。施倍德博士是多個政府及大學委員會
的成員，其中包括策略發展委員會、海濱事務委員會、土地及建設
咨詢委員會及香港大學城市規劃及設計系顧問委員會。目前施博士
亦擔任香港規劃師和香港城市設計學會的主席及副主席。施博士有
多本著作，其中包括描繪香港的The Urban Design of Impermanence
及敘述中國港口城市的The Urban Design of Concession。 施博士亦即將推出談及亞洲城市的Urban Design of Intervention。

他專長的研究及設計範疇包括 公共、教育、醫療及頤老建築；可持續
建築設計；及公眾參與策劃及工作坊。其院校建築設計及公眾參與規劃經驗尤其豐富，並獲優質教育基金及可持續發展基金資助，主導研
究項目。AD+RG 於 2013 年榮獲 BCI Asia 頒發之「放眼內地發展項
目建築師獎 2013」， 表揚內地發展項目的貢獻。 林氏於 2013 年及2008年獲委任為全國政協委員及重慶市政協委員。

Lim is the Principal of AD+RG Architecture Design and Research Group
Ltd. He was Past President of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects;
Founding President of the Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design; Chairman of the Building Committee of Hong Kong Housing Authority andMember of the Sustainable Development Council; Former Member of
Antiquities Advisory Board, Tourism Strategy Group, Town Planning
Board and Energy Advisory Committee.
Lim has established professional specialization and research in the areasof Institutional, Educational, Healthcare and Elderly Buildings; Sustainable designs, and Community Participatory Planning and Workshops. Hisleading research on Innovative School Designs and Public Participation has been supported by the Quality Education Fund and Sustainable
Development Fund. In 2013, AD+RG has been awarded “Focus China
Architects Award 2013” by BCI Asia in recognition of its contributions
to mainland project development.

Dr Peter Cookson Smith is an architect, planner and urban designer.
He has been a resident in Hong Kong since 1977 when he founded Urbis Limited, one of the first specialist planning, urban design and landscape consultancies in Southeast Asia, which over the past 35 years
has won more than 100 local and international awards. He sits on theAdvisory Council for the Department of Urban Planning and Design at
the University of Hong Kong, is a member of Government’s Strategic
Development Commission, a member of the Harbourfront Commission, and a member of the Land Development Advisory Committee.
He is currently President of the Hong Kong Institute of Planners andVice-President of the Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design. He is theauthor of The Urban Design of Impermanence on Hong Kong, The
Urban Design of Concession on Chinese port cities and the forthcoming Urban Design of Intervention on Asian cities.

He has been appointed since 2013 National Committee and 2008 Chongqing Committee Member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative
Conference of PRC.

林
雲
峰

施
倍
德
與會者 discussants 9

與會者
discussants
Ester van STEEKELENBURG

Marisa YIU ( 論壇主持 moderator)

Founder and Director
Urban Discovery

ESKYIU 創辦人

Ester van Steekelenburg 女士擁有超過15年的國際經驗，積極發展及
推動城市活化和文物遺產等保肓工作。她曾擔任多個東南亞國家的技
術顧問和導師如斯里蘭卡、印度、尼泊爾、菲律賓、泰國、印尼、中國、越南、老撾和緬甸等。擅長主理跨國及多元文化的工作，主力提供培訓強化發展中國家對城市發展、重建、房屋政策、文化遺產管理等技術援助，並曾與多個國際組織合作，包括世界銀行、亞洲開發銀
行和聯合國等。Steekelenburg 女士集學術及多元化顧問工作的背景，
曾擔任伊拉斯謨大學的房屋研究學院的工作，也為香港仲量聯行及Urban Solutions Ltd 的高級顧問，具備拓展城市文化遺產教育學習工具
的技能，現時她為Urban Discovery 創辦人及董事，目前更積極研發新
一代的教育學習工具，包括一系列從專科培訓到網上互動學習資訊工具。她擁有荷蘭阿姆斯特丹大學城市規劃碩士及香港大學博士學位。

姚嘉姍是建築師，也是建築事務所 ESKYIU 創辦人之一。ESKYIU結合了不同專業，積極融合文化、社區、藝術和科技。姚嘉姍和合夥人 Eric Schuldenfrei 憑著出色的設計裝置，一同獲頒「建築聯盟獎」
的殊榮，作品散見於威尼斯雙年展、倫敦建築聯盟學院以及紐約曼
克頓下城文化協會等。姚嘉姍亦擔任2009年香港•深圳城市/建築
雙城雙年展的總策展人。近年，他倆更合編《INSTANT CULTURE:
Architecture and Urbanism as a Collective Process》一書 (香港：
MCCM Creations 2011)，並合著一篇文章，收錄在《 High-Rise –Idea and Reality》裡 (德國： Hatje Cantz 2012)。

Ester van Steekelenburg has over 15 years of international experience inurban regeneration and heritage preservation. Her main strength is in crossdisciplinary and multicultural capacity building and advisory projects. She
has worked all over South-East Asia and recent assignments brought her
to Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar as an advisor, trainer or facilitator for a variety
of agencies including World Bank, Asian Development Bank and United
Nations.
Her current interest is in developing tools for learning. Her work experience in academics - Erasmus University’s Institute for Housing Studies,
as well as in industry - Jones Lang LaSalle Hong Kong & Urban Solutions Advisory has equipped her with the necessary skill set to transfer
knowledge on a variety of platforms from workshops to electronic andinteractive toolkits. She has a master’s degree in Urban Planning from
University of Amsterdam and a doctoral degree in Urban Economics fromthe University of Hong Kong.

Founding Partner
ESKYIU姚嘉姍曾於普林斯頓大學講解「另類做法」，並於TEDx活動、 2012
年設計營商周、明日中國基金會、聯合國教科文組織 (UNESCO) 論壇
以及哈佛大學演講。她也曾在建築聯盟學院、哥倫比亞大學建築研究
院、帕森設計學院等任教，並跟城市教學中心(Center for Urban Pedagogy)合作於庫珀休伊特國家設計博物館開班，目前正擔任香港中文大學建築學院助理教授。姚嘉姍先於哥倫比亞大學轄下的哥倫比亞學院
取得文學士榮譽學位，再於普林斯頓大學取得建築碩士學位，研究論
文更獲得獎項。現時，姚嘉姍身兼美國建築師學會成員、香港建築師
學會附屬會員、香港電台顧問委員會成員，以及香港設計大使董事會成員。

Marisa Yiu is an architect and Founding Partner of ESKYIU, a multidisciplinary architecture studio actively integrating culture, community,
art and technology. Along with her partner Eric Schuldenfrei they wereawarded the prestigious ‘Architectural League Prize’ for their outstanding design installations featured in the Venice Biennale, London’s Architectural Association and New York’s Lower Manhattan Cultural Council.
Marisa was the Chief Curator of the 2009 Hong Kong & Shenzhen BiCity Biennale of Urbanism/ Architecture. Recently they both edited INSTANT CULTURE: Architecture and Urbanism as a Collective Process(Hong Kong: MCCM Creations, 2011) and co-authored an essay in HighRise – Idea and Reality (Germany: Hatje Cantz, 2012).
Yiu has lectured at Princeton University on ‘Alternative practices’, TEDx,
BODW 2012, ChinaNEXT, UNESCO forum and at Harvard University.
Marisa has taught at the Architectural Association; Columbia University’s
Graduate School of Architecture; Parsons School of Design and Cooper
Hewitt National Design Museum with the Center for Urban Pedagogy.
Currently, she is an Assistant Professor at the School of Architecture at
the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She received her BA with honours
from Columbia College, Columbia University and MArch from Princetonwith an award winning thesis. Yiu is an AIA architect member, associateof the HKIA, Board of Advisors of RTHK, and Board member the Hong
Kong Ambassadors of Design.

姚嘉姍
10 與會者 discussants

討論摘要

d i s c u s s i on summary論壇主題：設計．城市．可持續發展(中文版為英文原稿翻譯本）利德裕：大家應記得去年2012年是香港設計年，香港設計中
心 (下稱設計中心) 協助特區政府推廣相關活動，主題為「創意城市．設計驅動」。我們想，這方面的工作要是能繼續
下去，而非僅僅推行一年就完結，那該多好。於是去年年底，我們展開了「設計驅動改變圓桌論壇」，是為我們所稱的倡議
活動之一。之前兩場論壇，我們分別討論了設計、文化和社
會，以及設計與經濟兩個主題。今天，我們會談談香港的持續發展。設計中心旨在於社區和商界宣揚和推廣與設計相關的領
導才能，建築師和設計師都是我們敬重的。我們希望探討一
下，建築可如何改善社會，營造更好的生活、工作以至玩樂環境。假如大家環顧四周，不難發現在座有建築師、設計師甚至
是集兩者於一身的建築設計師。我們就藉著這個平台，展開今天的討論。
今天，我們想深入了解創意城市在怎樣的環境下形成，也會討論如何透過設計來改善地方環境，以及在保育與古蹟工作和西九文化區(下稱西九)項目上，怎樣實現多用途的設計。這場論
壇由我和姚嘉姍主持，現在先請姚嘉姍帶領我們開始討論。
姚嘉姍：謝謝利德裕博士邀請我主持討論環節。「設計驅動改變」是個非常深奧的議題。面對城市轉型、政局變遷，我們要如何應對？我們又應怎樣教育下一代，好讓他們醒覺自己
可用創意表達意見，發現自己原來對城市空間享有公共擁有權呢？雖然這場討論會以輕鬆形式進行，但涉及的層面廣泛。我們將探討設計如何作為催化劑，帶動改變。
現時，香港的城市設計似乎局限於某種模式。我們要改變這種現
況，當中牽涉的種種問題，也許各位可以分享一下。有人說深圳
甚至比香港更具創意，更富城市的賦權功能，可以設計出比較出
色的公共空間。這樣的觀點看似具爭議性，但或許不無道理。另
外，我又想到要培育人才，興旺設計文化，但這種價值觀要怎麼
建立呢？在競爭以至參與方式等方面，又會衍生什麼問題？我看在座各位都對香港貢獻甚多，有什麼意見、故事或個案研究，也請儘管分享，好讓我們整理一下不同觀點，探索在香港市區發展
和創意可持續性的範疇上，設計到底扮演着什麼角色。當然，利德裕身為設計中心行政總裁的角色也已經歷不少轉變。每年「設計營商周」雲集世界各地翹楚，進行了一場又一場的討論，但相信大家也不甘於紙上談兵，那我們如何把研討成果轉化為實際行動呢？這場圓桌論壇正是個大好機會，把各位的意見轉化為行動，甚至有望推動新一輪的政策轉型。
討論的問題很簡單：根據大家各自的專業領域或是過往經驗，你認為可以怎樣進一步善用設計，讓香港的轉型更有價值和更具意義？接下來，我們會就以上幾點展開討論。

先談多元化 後論創意
相比起良好的市政管理、清晰的決策，
以及政府致力為公眾謀福祉的決心，設計看來分屬次要。
- Peter Cookson Smith
12

討論摘要

利德裕：我們察覺到四周有很多新事物發生，不只在香港。所以我們會先從大環境入手，從而剖析香港日後繼續向前邁進之際，設計可擔當什麼角色。我記得林筱魯提到中國內地的計劃和發展現況，發展策略是漁翁撒網式，不斷擴大規模，產生影響力；反觀香港就是專注在個別幾個項目上。我們不妨以此作為今
天討論的起點。
林筱魯：看看內地城市如上海、東莞和深圳等的現況，尤其是最近幾年，在設計和創意方面的表現，我會稱之為一種漁翁
撒網的策略，就是盡量提升產量以求存。他們經得起失敗，而
這正正是香港的根本問題所在：就我觀察所得，香港整個社會
都容不下任何錯失。我認為，在推廣創意、設計之類時，以西九項目為例，我們至少要先容納多元意見，方可談論創意。
然而，過去約十年來，我們只是不斷以把事情敲定為目標，卻沒有擴闊整個體系。要改變這個體系，我們先要改變自己的態度。與此同時，其他城市都在往前走，失敗率固然也很高。例
如我不久前到台北去，每一幢歷史建築物都按設計和創意的標
準來衡量，做得很成功；但想深一層，台灣這種做法也可能導
致系統性的失敗。至於香港，我們做的工夫跟台灣截然不同。
我們讓各非政府組織創作自己的項目，可以是有關設計的，也可以是有關社會服務的 ─ 這點我非常欣賞。我並不反對為
設計和創意營造更大的推動力，但我們能夠同時追求更多元化嗎？若是做到這點，有各式各樣的事物彼此吸引和互動，諸如西九的平台就會更有生氣更受青睞。這個機會不會為我們長
開，不趕快行動的話，我恐怕再也來不及了。
利德裕：我們要求進，目前我們正面對國際和周邊經濟區域
在城市發展所帶來的挑戰。
Peter Cookson Smith：每當談起設計，我們彷彿都離不開一個根本的兩難困局：要先有設計這個抽象概念，才可持續發
展。過去兩年，我一直拿香港面對的問題和其他亞洲城市比對，也跟不同城市的規劃人員討論過，發現各地的基本條件
其實是一樣的。無論是全球經濟、社會貧富差距還是市區重建
策略，大家的情況都相若。相比起良好的市政管理、清晰的決
策，以及政府致力為公眾謀福祉的決心，設計看來分屬次要。
但正如林筱魯所言，孕育設計文化倒是需要社會的認同和積極參與。隨著設計的規模越大，好像由設計一隻平底鍋到設計一間房間，以至一整幢大廈甚至是整個地區，我們就會碰到越多
考慮因素，分薄設計的重要性，連原本設計的目的也變得越來越複雜。我覺得我們在設計上有着不同的指示，其實正是試圖
顧及各方面，務求設計符合可持續發展觀。
林雲峰：剛才Peter指我們嘗試營造一個積極參與的環境，好讓香港在亞太區的設計領域佔上一席，這點我很欣賞。而林筱
魯提到的多元化也很重要，因為香港其中一項優勢就是融合內
地和世界各地的文化決策。過去六至八年來，我們與在座有幾
位都曾合作，參與「香港•深圳雙年展」，那不僅是替深圳創
造了一個平台，亦是通過港深兩地來替整個珠江三角洲設立平台，吸引世界級的設計師、城市規劃專家和理論學者，分享他
們心目中城市未來發展的重要議題。我認為香港應參與其中，
然後引入相關的專業知識。去年我們邀請了台北作為其中一

個參展城市，今年也很高興，巴塞隆拿表示很有可能會到香港參展。我們可將歐洲和本地的專業知識互相結合。除了深圳以
外，我也期待未來可跟上海或其他內地城市有類似的合作，不單是一次性的活動，而是透過這些合作達致協同效應，為香港
的設計界帶來新衝擊。

公眾教育和社區參與推廣創意
文化教育對孩子影響甚大，我認為教育能為
未來打好根基，如果孩子在學習期間就接觸
過建築，他們長大後就能發展出一套相應的文
化和價值觀。這點十分緊要
能在日常生活培養創意的意識，即使是基層市民也能投入其中。我們可在教育和社區兩方面同時推廣創意
藝術。
- 馮宜萱
馮宜萱：這點我覺得很有趣。香港建築師學會（下稱學會）不只跟深圳合辦雙年展，也參與了威尼斯雙年展。目前，我們幾乎每天都有一個雙年展的活動。現時我們正在策劃雙城雙年展，預計在2013年年底舉行；不久前我們又在香港舉辦了去年威尼斯雙年展的回應展覽；我們亦正計劃替2014年的威尼斯雙年展籌募資金。簡單來說，近幾年學會都在盡力把這些展
覽確立為我們的定期活動，從而推動建築創意，將香港搬上國際舞台，同時又把世界各地的建築特色引入香港；透過這些持
續舉辦的節目，來提升本地創意，締造更美好的城市。我們希望這有助提高公眾對建築創意的意識。
對於2006年首次舉辦的雙年展，我也有些反思。那次展覽結
束後，在好像今天這般的小組討論環節中，我們說到香港可怎樣變得有創意之類，那時我的回應是香港尚未有這樣的平台。
政界和教育界人士在過往的求學階段，都沒有受過建築或藝術賞析的訓練；高中設有藝術科的學校亦寥寥可數。我們要把怎麼建築的學問帶到中學去，讓老師和學生都能加以認識？答案
是借助高中課程的四門學科，分別是視覺藝術、科學、通識教
育，以及設計與應用科技。我們設計了一些教材，裡面有些元
素可帶領老師和學生認識本地的建築。這只是我們的第一步，
但也是非常重要的一步。教育對孩子影響甚大，我認為教育能
為未來打好根基，如果孩子在學習期間已接觸過建築，他們長
大後就能發展出一套相應的文化和價值觀。這點十分緊要。
價值不菲的藝術品或雕塑，房屋委員會（下稱房委會）固然負擔不起，但我們也鼓勵在社區推廣藝術。比如在藍田邨，建築師跟租戶攜手設計了以中式點心為題材的雕塑，又製作了造
型有如無限標誌的雕像放在公園，並用膠飯碗拼砌出大廈的名
字。這就是我們可以利用的東西，能在日常生活培養創意的意
識，即使是基層市民也能投入其中。我們可在教育和社區兩方
面同時推廣創意藝術。

香港其實不乏創意，只是沒有受到公眾注意。我認為我們不必
追求我們所沒有的，反而要點算現有的東西，再向公眾宣傳。
新加坡在這方面就做得很出色，會把當地創作如數家珍。我曾經跟秘書到訪新加坡，了解當地的公共房屋環境。新加坡的官
員指當地居民總是對香港讚不絕口，我們則說香港市民也不時
盛讚新加坡。然後我們打趣說，要是能交換兩地市民，那麼兩邊就都滿意了！
在我看來，現時香港的確要認真了解自己所擁有的。很多東西都未被發掘，需要有人在傳媒倡議此事。大家都曉得，傳媒大多數時候都很敏感、很愛批評，他們不會報導好的一面，反而
一味發表憤世嫉俗的意見。批評並非不好，但我認為我們得平衡兩方面的觀點，在批評的同時，也應作出適當的肯定。
姚嘉姍：馮宜萱的經驗分享反映了過去十年香港的變化，實在叫人聽得津津有味。其實我覺得香港確有同道共同宣揚和推
動剛才提到的意念，形成一種動力。我們都致力帶動改變，而隨著自己去年參與越來越多，我也在反思這些事。我們一直在推動社區參與，也舉辦公眾論壇，但我們要怎樣確定某件成品屬於優質設計呢？我們該如何評價那些主導着城市經濟的大眾消費品？抑或將它們定位為這城市的高水準設計？我認為這方面荷蘭做得很好 ─ 就像 Peter 提到的平底鍋的例子，那些
比例、質量、實用性等等，我們要怎樣確保這些優點得到大眾
的認可？這很難做到。人們固然已厭倦了平庸，我們要彰顯優點，但該用上什麼新的規則、策略或方法才做得到呢？一直以
來我們都為這幾點爭論不休，我想知道各位如何定斷這些事情
的優先次序。撇開公眾參與的問題，現時我們要怎樣更實質地
釐定優化城市的策略，從而提升品質？

我們不單要在正規教育推廣創意文化，
也要更廣泛的推行公眾教育。教育是至關重要的。這城市正正是缺乏了文化意識，不僅是教
育，而是那份意識。
- Patrick Bruce
Patrick Bruce：剛才馮宜萱提到教育的重要性，從教育制度
方面入手，這無疑是整個發展過程的根本所在。我們不單要在
正規教育推廣創意文化，也要更廣泛的推行公眾教育。教育是
至關重要的。恕我直言，我絕對不是討厭Hello Kitty，但Hello
Kitty 文化絕對是最低級的通俗趣味。這是俗套的問題。市場充斥着這些俗套的迪士尼式次文化產物，將整個文化簡化至這
般低俗的趣味。老實說，這跟教育的作用不無關係。我們的教育缺少了一些基本的要素，這從日常生活便可知一二。大家都知道建築師的確在努力，部分人士更在這地方興建了舉足輕重、價值不菲的建築，他們每天都要作出細緻的判斷；但與此同時，我們也曉得這些建築師當中，不少人會在下班回家後，又再置身Hello Kitty式的環境。這可謂精神分裂、多重人格。
這城市正正是缺乏了文化意識，不僅是教育，而是那份意識。
我不知道這裡為何沒有文化意識，我解釋不了。

討論摘要

13

論壇主題：設計．城市．可持續發展Ester van Steekelenburg：我在祖國 [荷蘭] 也是做諮詢工作，
關於古蹟保育和市區重建。幾年前我們開始在香港發展，設計了一些令城市更有趣的東西，例如是給小孩子的尋寶遊戲、企
業活動，以及以《奪寶奇兵 Show》為藍本的遊戲，基本上就是要將我們降至Hello Kitty級的水平來配合大眾，藉此提升市民對文化身份和文物古蹟的意識。我們的活動非常受歡迎，也饒有趣味。其實人們是喜歡外出的，無論是中學生、小孩子還
是上班族都一樣，畢竟大多數人整天都坐在辦公室或課室裡。
他們平日也要一下子消化接收到的所有資訊，幾乎沒有時間去反思或是培養創意思維。通常我們的活動就是讓人們有機會
思考一番。不過，我們在香港遇上不少阻撓，有許多法律責任
和許可證的問題要處理。香港的環境並不利於舉辦這類活動。
反觀在亞洲區其他地方如新加坡和越南，事情就易辦得多了，
不只是辦事容易，當地的決策人士和政府部門更對我們的活
動大表歡迎。但我覺得香港就完全相反。雖然我看到香港需要
這樣的活動，看到香港人的熱忱，看到他們並非都只愛Hello
Kitty，但實際做起來還是很難。我確實很欣賞你提到有關新一代這觀點，設計文化本就該由新一代開始。現時還在唸書的孩
子要是立志成為建築師或設計師，理應絕對可以接受，但偏偏現今的社會風氣並非如此。

姚嘉姍：但我們可以如何創新呢？馮宜萱在房委會那邊推廣
藝術，但假如監管程序並不支持，那如何是好？不如陳志毅也
發表一下意見，知道你身兼建築師和室內設計師，過去幾年依你所見可怎樣提高參與水平？除了發展綜合型建設和與深圳相
連的新區外，如何通過設計來推動更能持續發展的新市鎮體
系，並且在市區生活質素、家居設計以及持續發展等方面推陳
出新？如果這些問題有答案的話，我很想知道。

規劃綜合用途公共空間

這座城市雖已高度發展，長久以來的政
府架構也很不錯，但土地和金融體系只有利於
政府財政，卻對生活質素、保育和再生設計等
方面造成威脅。

參考一下其他城市，有些會把建築成本
的百分之一撥予發展公眾藝術。倘若建設或發
展規模超過特定大小，就會形成競爭性體系，
然而多投入藝術元素，卻可反過來提升創意和協同效應。

- Peter Cookson Smith- 陳志毅

Peter Cookson Smith：市區重建局擔當了守護這城市的角色。茂蘿街（Mallory Street）本是灣仔鬧市不起眼的一排
屋，但翻新後卻竟成了動漫基地，這正好體現了Patrick所說的
Hello Kitty 文化。在我看來，亞洲其中一個核心問題，就是有
太多強勢城市。今時今日，不少人都認同國際一線城市之間的相似度，比起同一國家內的城市還要高。許多城市的人口比本國其他地方的總和還要多。於是，就架構上而言，這情形造成
了一些頗有趣的現象。我敢說香港正好處於光譜的一極，這裡的管治方式、城市緊密度、有系統的政治架構和規範，都是別
的地方無可比擬的，這些都影響着城市的實體發展。對於香港
要發展成一個先進都市，我始終摸不透應該要抱着什麼態度，
是悲觀還是謹慎樂觀呢？而我們說的先進又是指什麼？我認為它有兩層意思。正面而言，香港的市政管理一流，政府貪污亦相對罕見，加上法治體系完善，無論我身處哪裡，都受到法律保障。剛剛這星期我參加了一場中央政策組的座談會，也提到
了法治是促進經濟的基本條件，是我們真正需要的東西。
然而，不太樂觀地看，這座城市雖已高度發展，長久以來的政
府架構也很不錯，但土地和金融體系只有利於政府財政，卻對
生活質素、保育和再生設計等方面造成威脅。回應剛才林筱魯
的觀點，我並不是說這裡的系統已經失敗，可是從功能上看我
們的確有着根本的問題。我們能指着維港兩岸任何一幢建築，說「這個設計真美妙」嗎？或是指着任何一樣東西，說「這個設計正好」嗎？相信很難。自由市場原則備受推崇，在某些範

14疇上也確實帶來巨額收益，可是亦造成嚴重的社會貧富懸殊，我們是否單單為了提高政府財政收入而奉行自由市場呢？這點
我很是質疑。我轉彎抹角的說了這麼多，就是想指出我們尚有
許多事情要應付，而且很大程度上要依賴政府。我們大概想在新界 [東北] 安頓好 130 萬人口，但怎樣做才是最好呢？安
置人口的同時，我們要如何結合城市的整體改善措施？住屋是居住質素的基本一環，我們並非僅僅興建更多廉租屋和鞋盒單
位，而是要試圖解決居住質素的問題。

討論摘要

陳志毅：這座城市越變越小。我們年青時，感覺上它要比現在大一點。如今整座城都給基建系統所破壞，把人都隔絕開，我們再也不是一個社區。至於在設計方面，可以說「我們住的地方決定了我們是誰」。不幸的是，香港是個非常商業化的城市，一切幾乎都由商業利益主宰，建築、文化、城市規劃等無一不是。這個體系沒有將藝術、文化和居住環境緊密地扣在一
起。參考一下其他城市，有些會把建築成本的百分之一撥予發展公眾藝術。倘若建設或發展規模超過特定大小，就會形成競爭性體系，然而多投入藝術元素，卻可反過來提升創意和協同效應。現時，大家似乎都在忙，卻沒有共同目標或合作，列明
要完成的項目和發展日程，把香港打造成一個設計之都。那要怎麼辦呢？一直以來都有不少討論和爭拗。藝術、文化和居住
環境是打造美麗城市的重要元素。我不是說香港不美，更不是說香港不可能變美，但就設計方面而言，香港過去的建設方式
確是沒有促成一個更美好的城市。
林雲峰：香港這城市高樓林立、人煙稠密。在我看來，有一
點很重要的，就是如何把公共空間還於市民。商業主義和資本主義在香港的盛行程度幾乎到了極點。特區政府其中一項職責
就是要讓市民得以享受公共空間，並確保他們享受到的公共空間足夠。過去兩年，西九文化區管理局舉辦了幾項比賽，收到
的參賽設計都很不錯，獲選作品更妥善考慮到公共空間的使用
方式。這份優勝作品由一所加拿大建築公司 [譚秉榮建築師事
務所] 設計，當中構思是建設一個流線形的半露天中庭，從廣
東道可清楚看到中庭內部。此外，勝出M+ 博物館設計比賽的設計師更把中庭跟港鐵機場快線的隧道相連，令港鐵站成為
展覽場地的一部分，將城市又再展現於公眾前，大家可輕易使
用機場、鐵路等基設。這樣的概念正是管理局需要重視的。怎
樣規劃公共空間並向公眾呈現。我認為這是政策轉型的重要考慮。特區政府和設計師應參照其他類似城市的做法。過去十年
在公屋設計上，馮宜萱和她的工作團隊設計出許多優秀、平易
近人的公共空間，雖沒有用上昂貴的加工，但已能讓公屋住戶
好好享受。相比內地，我們的居住空間很小。儘管面積有限，但我們要是能夠建造一座效率甚高又不拒公眾於門外的城市，
我覺得這還是個可以供其他亞洲城市參考的模式，特別是內地
未來將會發展出更多人口同樣非常稠密的城市。

特區政府其中一項職責就是要讓市民得
以享受公共空間，並確保他們享受到的公共空間足夠。我們要是能夠建造一座效率甚高又不拒公眾於門外的城市，我覺得這還是個可以供其他亞洲城市參考的模式，特別是內地未來將會發展出更多人口同樣非常稠密的城市。
- 林雲峰
林筱魯：為什麼香港人口這麼稠密？如果我們不正視這問
題，便可能要犧牲郊野公園的土地。關鍵就在於如何巧妙運用
我們擁有的空間。我覺得香港既然有這麼多良才，這座城市是
應該可以持續發展的。我們都曉得這裡的制度有諸多掣肘，這固然叫人洩氣，但即使在現時的政局和行政架構下，我們還是有辦法達成目標的。不管是房委會還是西九文化區管理局，我一概統稱為組織吧，剛才說要擺脫他們的掣肘並無負面意思。
我只是想說要持續發展，我們不可依循典型的規劃、建設和賣
地方案，但倘若把西九單純視作公共空間，由康樂及文化事
務署打理，這可不會成事。即使精心設計過那地方，也不可能成事。假如我們仔細看條文，會發現特區政府設立這些組織就
是要發揮彈性和創意。我不會說這做法一定不會出錯，反而我們要作各種更高層次的試驗，看看有什麼效果。但問題正正是
政客一味退縮，說要控制這控制那。這就是政府現時面對的問
題。我們要清晰界定大家的職責範圍，過分重疊的話就成不了事。要令它成事可謂困難重重。
姚嘉姍：我很認同林筱魯剛才的一番話。我突然想起綜合發展區的問題，不知在座各位有什麼看法？李躍華向我提過他自2009年起就在內地參與了許多辦公大樓設計項目，說自己更像一位內地設計師，身處內地的時間更多過在香港。我們能否在香港建造出有如上海新天地一樣的綜合用途發展區？你對林
筱魯的觀點又有什麼回應？
李躍華：我大概八成時間都在內地工作，所以同事都說我就如內地人一樣，不過我始終自視為一位香港設計師。有時在內地工作要比在香港容易，那邊的客戶比較接受我們的設計意
念，也就無需浪費許多時間推銷。我討厭香港現時的工作環
境，因為許多時候都得向客戶推銷大量不同的設計，而這些推銷工作是沒有報酬的。因此，香港設計師協會最常抗議的就是
這種免費推銷，那對行業傷害很大。至於說到城市和持續發展的問題，我會着眼於那些因為免費推銷而受苦的設計師，他們
的客戶並不支付任何諮詢費，卻花許多時間催逼設計師提交設
計方案。所以我很欣賞西九文化管理局的招標做法，建築師的確可以獲得報酬，反觀香港的中小型企業甚至部分大財團都不會支付費用。人們 [客戶] 都習慣從設計師身上拿好處，要他們
做這做那，提交許多設計方案，但最終這些客戶把不同設計師
的意念混在一起，當作自己的全新設計。香港設計業界對此不
可不察。
利德裕：起初我們構思這個「設計驅動改變圓桌論壇 」系
列時，考慮過的名字也不少。「設計驅動改變」所指不是為改變而改變。或許在接下來的討論，我們可以把焦點集中於展望
未來：香港和其他周邊城市的公共空間發展作比較。我們需要求進，因為我們不能原地踏步，現時我們處境艱難。過去六個月，我曾到訪了不少亞洲城市，包括曼谷、首爾、新加坡、深圳、上海和北京，這些地方全都發展迅速。我肯定這些地方都能持續發展下去，因為他們有承擔和發展機遇。至於香港作為一個發展成熟的城市，我們要怎樣保持優勢呢？怎樣重新塑造
這座城市，讓它在變得越來越先進之同時，又不流於只具效率
和充斥大眾文化的城市？我們要怎樣為營造香港成為一個具創
意的城市，讓大眾在此地生活、工作和享受生活？或許我們可
就以上幾點討論一下。
Peter Cookson Smith：我認為首要任務是善用自己的優勢，
其次就是不要只把眼光局限於設計。我十分認同林雲峰和林筱
魯的觀點，我們的城市在許多方面都算得上可以持續發展。香港麻雀雖小，五臟俱全，人煙稠密，全港七成人口住在離市區
核心10公里範圍之內，非常獨特。這個市區範圍很大。大概幾年前我粗略計算過，在香港，利用公共交通工具的話，幾乎每
個人都只消 25 分鐘左右就能到達泳灘或郊野公園。不過我也
同意我們需要制定一些通用的持續發展量度標準。有次中央政策組座談會的主題是知識型經濟，又提到香港的發展路向，因為現時我們對香港的信心和期望都有點動搖，尤其是年青人。
經濟發展及合作組織成員國無疑都開始掌握知識型經濟增長之道，但我認為香港要尋求一套多元經濟的發展策略，我們目前正缺乏這種多元化。
第二點關乎到生活質素。我們在環保和基本生活質素兩方面都遇到難題，上兩代香港人覺得合適的東西，跟時下的期望根本並不相稱，所以我們得關注房屋質素的問題。第三就是城市的改善，種種原因令城市公共空間的問題每況愈下，政府想解決
問題，但顯然囿於官僚制度的死結之下。就像姚嘉姍剛才提到
的綜合用途發展，一直以來我們都傾向不斷重建項目，甚至連《建築物條例》亦支持重建，市區重建局（Urban Renewal Authority）所謂的「renewal」（更新）根本應改為「redevelopment」（重建）。事實上，這個機構理應負責市區復興，過程跟
結果同樣重要。然而，我們一向都傾向重建，而重建未必可實
現我們所訂下的持續發展目標。每份規劃文件都說要做到百花
齊放、多元文化之類，盡都是我們想在這城市和海濱見到的美
好結果；但實際上我們距離這些東西越來越遠，香港比從前更缺乏多樣性，周遭環境越趨商品化。我很認同林雲峰說要認真
看待這問題，而且我們要透過市區設計尋找撥亂反正的機會。

討論摘要

15

論壇主題：設計．城市．可持續發展Patrick Bruce：Peter 這觀點很有趣。我認為機會雖減少了，
但需求倒是增加了。
Peter Cookson Smith：也有越來越多人要求改善市內的連接網絡，將城市環境視作一個整體。以 MegaBox 為例，這座購
物商場位處九龍中央，理應只消走三分鐘便可到達港鐵九龍灣
站，但你偏偏不可以直接走路前往，完全沒法子。他們就建了這麼一座與世隔絕的大型商場，你必須乘搭穿梭巴士才可往返
商場和港鐵站，那車程要花上十分鐘的時間。我們竟然規劃出這樣的環境，真是不可思議。其實這並非設計上的問題，因為我替政府擔當規劃諮詢工作，就曉得這基本上不是設計有誤，而是我們都只顧技術上和功能上的問題，就是基建、道路等等，其他的都列為次要考慮。
利德裕：我們可再深入探討這個問題嗎？提到缺乏持續發展
量度標準，我覺得是個挺有趣的議題。數星期前我向立法會報
告，我和行政部門都遇到類似的問題：政府應投資多少在設計
及文化發展項目上？應怎樣計算？這些投資又會帶來多大的果效？你當然要有一些助緣去促進發展，那不是說這個模式一旦採用了就要永恆不變，但起碼可以讓我們繼續實踐使命，改善社會發展。我們可集中討論如何減省制度上的繁文縟節和掣肘，或許那不全然是政府的問題，畢竟我們所有人都屬於這個
體制。我們要如何擺脫這個困局呢？在座嘉賓位不妨就有關量
度標準和措施發表一下意見？
林筱魯：老實說，這些標準從不在管治班子的考慮之列，不過是溝通質素的問題。譬如民主或是其他什麼，都是如此。我最初接觸公眾參與已是起碼 30 年前的事，當時人們在討論高壓威逼之類的東西。重點是到底我們能否提供一個有效的討論
平台，以及如何建造這麼的一個平台。這就是我們現時所缺乏的。以前不同專家都嘗試製造這樣的平台，但問題是公眾的聲
音經過各種渠道後是否受到關注，而目前的討論平台並不太有效。我也完全同意倡議的重要性，我們在古物保育方面正正很努力這樣嘗試。我們要懂得挑選最關鍵的議題。我自己是個很
積極主動的人，昨天我們開會討論大澳的保育，「我們要保育的是什麼呢？」這個關鍵問題沒有人真正答得上。在此我想引
用一位好友的話，他說，想一想吧，香港以一級方程式賽車速度發展，不能用看待腳踏車的方式去處理的。我十分欣賞巴塞
隆拿的針灸式市區規劃，但我們要竭力找出真正的問題所在才成得了事。萬一把針刺錯穴位，就會流血了。我們這班專家也
的確要在這個問題上花更多時間。

我們似乎本來就坐擁這一切的綜合用途
發展區，而不是透過設計才達成的，總之這
城市已經有綜合用途建設，我們有多樣化的活動，經濟、教育、文化或社會的都不缺，問題
是如何處理這些活動範圍之間的空隙。
- Patrick Bruce
Patrick Bruce：這個針灸比方真有趣。回應姚嘉姍有關香港
綜合用途發展的問題，香港是個一應俱全的小城，你要是喜歡

16

討論摘要

的話也可以說這是我們的綽號，這就是我們給世人的印象。
這麼小的一座城，根據 Peter 的數據，人們只消 25 分鐘就去
到泳灘等公眾休憩地點，或是郊野公園等空曠範圍。我倒認為
香港本身已採用了綜合用途發展方式，問題只是我們要做得更多，但我們要做什麼、在哪裡做呢？
回應林雲峰先前關於公共空間的意見，在我看來，我們似乎本來就坐擁這一切的綜合用途發展區，而不是透過設計才達成
的，總之這城市已經有綜合用途建設，我們有多樣化的活動，
經濟、教育、文化或社會的都不缺，問題是如何處理這些活動
範圍之間的空隙，也就是公共空間。我們如何把這些活動連接起來？這也許就是你所謂的針灸法。我們要找出那些早已存在
但需要連起來才用得上的「穴位」，將我們各類的活動都連接起來。只要連好那幾個點，我們就差不多建成一座獨樹一幟的城市，彰顯了綜合用途的方針。
馮宜萱：我覺得九龍站是個真真正正的綜合用途建設，一個擁有休憩空間的港鐵站，而且即將毗鄰西九文化區。我們要怎樣把這樣的空間作為一個整體去處理？如何將這些空間彼此接連、讓它們共同協作呢？以後你便可從這個車站去到機場，試想想香港的運作會變得多有效率啊！你所需要的，這個地方幾乎一應俱全，但要怎樣運用創意，令這些空間更開放和更有趣
味，令人覺得這是屬於香港的東西呢？對我們來說，這些空間
有甚麼意義？我們可以怎樣跟別人說，這就是香港的風格？我希望在日常生活中能看到更多創意，那麼無論你見到一個路牌還是垃圾桶，也曉得那是以創意方式呈現的香港形象。要以點連點的方式連接不同空間的話，我想交通網絡的範圍會頗適合，因為城裡有很多這樣的空間，例如港鐵站和巴士站等。我們可以怎樣將這些抵港的門戶化成迎賓處，展現香港魅力？

香港的多元化實在教人嘖嘖稱奇，硬體配套上質素很好，但軟體方面卻似乎不獲重視，
我認為這才是真正的問題所在。去接觸那些正在冒起的創意群體吧，不論他們是否屬政府資助，讓他們參與市區空間的設計，讓多元化抬
頭。屋邨和港鐵站不必一式一樣，千篇一律，
也要容許出錯，這是非常重要的一點。
- Ester van Steekelenburg
Ester van Steekelenburg：我來自荷蘭，最大的城市就是阿
姆斯特丹，但也只有 100 萬人口。對當地的城市規劃人員來說，對外開放公共空間，舉辦活動去令那些地方熱熱鬧鬧，都是顯淺的道理。這全是規劃人員受訓時所學的一部分。在香港
我見不到這些政策，但我敢說荷蘭許多城市規劃人員都會羨慕香港這樣多姿多彩的市區。香港的多元化實在教人嘖嘖稱奇，硬體配套上質素很好，但軟體方面卻似乎不獲重視，我認為這
才是真正的問題所在。去接觸那些正在冒起的創意群體吧，不論他們是否屬政府資助，讓他們參與市區空間的設計，讓多元化抬頭。屋邨和港鐵站不必一式一樣，千篇一律，也要容許出錯，這是非常重要的一點。在我的祖國，一旦做了決定，就會
一直按這決定行事；倘真出錯了，就嘗試別的方式。但香港的心態並非如此，這裡做事較為保守。以上就是我對香港未來發
展的意見了。

出良好的城市和設計思維，培養會主動關心城市改善和公眾利益
的年輕一代。這需要創意思維及創意教學才能成事。

利德裕：每年設計中心都會跟一個國家合作 [舉辦設計營商周]，這些夥伴國給我們的反饋意見亦跟各位很相近。或許我們
有時確實太妄自菲薄吧，我們應好好發揮自己的優勢，正面思維，善用我們所擁有的。

關於文化發展，還有一點很重要的就是文化不一定透過政府施政才能衍生出來。政府說要在這個地方建這個設施，把所有具
文化價值的活動都單單集中在這個地方，但這一切也不過是文化發展的「頂端」而非全象。我真的覺得這就是長久以來從上而下的施政方式所造成的後果，失去了從下而上的過程裡的社
區連繫，形成了一道鴻溝。休息前我們討論到觀塘的現況─一個上周五晚的活動，充滿活力，叫人很是雀躍。那不是表面的
東西，負責策動的人都看得見，非常本土，非常個人，無論最終結果如何，那過程說到底是極富創意的。我所指的是藝術音樂以及其他創意產業的次文化，甚至是不少工業大廈現時都在實行的市區耕種，統統都展現出創意十足的空間利用方式。那裡是 20 歲出頭的年輕人表達自己想法的地方。但遺憾的是，
我覺得社區大多數人實際上都不認識這些活動，不了解這群年輕人想表達什麼，於是這些活動沒有當地社區的參與。也許這
正是因為我們把嶄露頭角的文化活動都推到地底去了，這些活
動根本無法循一般途徑舉行，公眾難以接觸。我們要怎樣面對這些靈活多變的工廈活化方式呢？活化已是如火如荼，我們要
好好協調，善用這類活動，亦要了解基層正在做甚麼。

姚嘉姍：我倒是絕對樂觀的。身為香港人，我很高興可以在此地生活。我覺得香港在不少方面的確可作為典範，這裡宛若
一個城市實驗室，人煙稠密，也不乏創意群體，但偏偏缺失了自身那份價值。你要怎麼找出那獨特之處，確保香港依然有着
自我塑造的本土身份？是否要在公共空間找出那種獨特之處呢？猶記得三年前，我們討論要重新設計香港的公共空間，用更全面而連貫的方式把這些空間連接起來，推行更有趣的策略
來創造我們的景觀。然而，又回到老問題上，我們該如何實現這些目標呢？比如在香港未來十年的發展日程上，這些事情會
否獲優先處理？發展基建時，若同時考慮到基建的美觀程度，那跟單單建設一座屏障就截然不同，那比較像是結合幾方面的
元素，除了文化和實用性外，還要展現美學和玩味。我認為這些都屬於有關設計的重要討論，要是接下來能探討更多實際行
動就更好了。

建立有效從下而上的公眾諮詢機制
我們的確有考慮到設計，也有推行設計
教育，問題是我們仍然沿用從上而下的規劃決
策模式，沒有一套確實有效、從下而上的公眾諮詢機制，每當市民提出意見，我們根本不知
如何招架；我們不曉得怎樣平衡公眾和專家的意見，從而制定清晰的政策。
- Peter Cookson Smith利德裕：我們討論了不少有關整個景觀發展的問題、大環境，以及香港擁有的優勢等。接下來的時間，我提議集中討論
從上而下和從下而上的發展方式，以及在教育方面可以加入什麼新元素，以改變甚至擺脫現況，推動香港向前邁進。或許我們可再深入研究一下可透過什麼方法來培養設計思維，不只針
對政府，而是要提升整個社區的創意。
Peter Cookson Smith：我投身香港教育界已有一段頗長時
間，其實要在社會建立一個更開放普及的平台，不應單只從年輕一輩入手，也要考慮到上一輩人。接觸年長和年輕的一輩同樣
重要，尤其是在亞洲社會，因為這裡大部分的阻力都來自年長一輩。正如馮宜萱所言，為人父母的不一定支持一個鼓勵創意的教育制度，也不一定喜歡孩子投身建築設計、設計業或藝術界之類，他們倒是着眼於那些高尚職業，譬如律師和醫生，就是當個會計師也或許尚可接受。我們要了解怎麼樣的教育環境才能培養

除了純粹談創意，還有另一個範疇要討論，就是空間的自發利用。我認為這點也是為人所忽略的，但這些活動的確正在盛行。即管到香港的舊區去，你就發現那些自發活動，滄海桑
田，舊建築耳目一新。先前我們談到綜合用途發展以及公共
空間的使用，其實你只需走進舊區，看看那些老舊的多用途地
方，它們就是最生機勃發、最靈活的例子，最能體現何謂優秀而可持續的高密度市區發展。所以說，香港本地確實有這些自發活動，只是我們未有留意和聆聽。我們太忙於那些宏大的規劃，卻忽略了實際發生的事情，我們的確要學習了解這些事。
利德裕：之前我們也提到教育的問題 ，這不一定限於大學教
育，而是指更廣泛的教育。我們要怎樣調整自己的思維模式來
迎接創新求變呢？不如再聽聽 Peter 的意見，你說過我們不可
只局限於設計，這聽起來有點奧妙，設計不是關乎外觀美感，能否請你再闡述一下你的見解？
Peter Cookson Smith：首先，我會說設計教育其實有逐步改善，這點無庸置疑。現時香港也真的辦了一所設計學院，又有其他眾多設計機構，我們這刻更置身於設計中心呢！我們的確有考慮到設計，也有推行設計教育，問題是我們仍然沿用從上而下的規劃決策模式，沒有一套確實有效、從下而上的公眾諮詢機制，每當市民提出意見，我們根本不知如何招架；我們不曉得怎樣平衡公眾和專家的意見，從而制定清晰的政策。要從根本解決問題，我們得開始以全面的角度去考慮這些事情。
其實這不過是很顯淺的道理，然而眾所周知特區政府的部門各
自為政，閉門造車，我們也一直被此困住了，這問題更越趨嚴重，難以解決。我們當中有些人試圖跟政府共事，加入各種督導委員會，但面對着其他 20 至 25 位來自不同部門的委員會
成員，卻沒有一個機制去調解各方的首要考慮因素，去為整體
環境設想，這也是問題所在。

討論摘要

17

論壇主題：設計．城市．可持續發展
這個城市也顯然缺乏真正的願景。基本上這裡沒有領袖，我們有很多人帶領不同的團體，但我們沒有市長之類的人物。那就有點像是迴避了對這種領袖的需要。我們又把市政局解散了。
現在我明白市長有多重要，我見識過 Michael Bloomberg [紐約市市長] 為紐約所做的事，也體會到過去 20 年來倫敦市長制度的功用。我在倫敦讀書的時候，那裡問題多的是，大倫敦議會想拆掉科芬園 (Convent Garden)，許多人上街抗議，戴卓爾
夫人就解散了大倫敦議會，結果過去 20 年的大部分時間，倫敦陷入彷如流離失所的狀態，沒有人挺身而出維護這座城，城內環境一落千丈。後來全靠首任市長 Ken Livingston 和現任市
長 Boris Johnson ，才把倫敦再次振興起來。要改善城市，總
得有人站出來推動應做之事。現時在香港，各區區議會集結了
所有能量和權力，以及不少資金，那非但無助平衡社會各界的意見，反而加深了分歧。

在制度規限中尋求靈活發展策略

剛才馮宜萱提到舊建築的空間和建築物改造，我很是認同，尤其是有關觀塘的想法。某程度上我覺得黃竹坑 [香港島工業區] 的情況也一樣，那裡同樣正在轉變，除了保育以外，亦有很多活化工作。我們要記住這是僅存的最後一類非正規經濟體系，許多工廠大廈都採用了極不美觀的設計，但裡頭確實充滿驚喜。然而，
這些工廠大廈大多屬私人擁有，受制於私人市場的實際環境變
化。假如單位供過於求 ─ 這情況也是直至近期才逆轉 ─ 租金
就會很便宜，小型企業和新公司等紛紛進駐。可是，在現時的舊工業大廈，幾乎每吋面積都漲了價，即使在屯門等地區亦然，租金較為實惠的過剩單位已寥寥無幾。新公司租下這些地方，最終
也很可能因租金上漲而難以支持下去。值得一提的是，過去20
至25年，亞洲和中國內地城市湧現了所謂的文化邊緣活動，但正正就因為舊建築空間短缺，窒礙了這些活動的增長和發展。兩
三年前，中國各地的歌德學院代表舉辦了一次聚會，我到北京出席這活動，會上還有大約40人。那時我很是震驚，因為其他來
賓大概全不到32歲，而且我又發現內地城市的文化設施和文化
邊緣活動種類繁多。內地有這麼多的文化設施和活動，其中一個
原因正是他們不缺舊建築。人們可以在這些舊建築物裡開創自己的世界，諸如畫廊、藝術社區和邊緣劇場等等，就仿如現時的歐洲城市一般。學院和大學的年輕人到過內地見識這些文化，回港後總是問：「我們這裡到底怎麼了？」內地這些東西我們都沒有，沒有那些非正規的邊緣活動場所，讓人們可以參與其中，所以我們才會出現 Hello Kitty 文化和動漫基地。我不是要指責
政府的不是，其實林鄭月娥 [政務司司長] 在開放舊有公共建築
方面做得不錯，例如荷李活道前已婚警察宿舍以及深水埗的 [前北九龍] 裁判法院，也改作不同用途，但這些活化工作都成本高昂。若換了是上海，他們就簡簡單單的將這些舊建築物作為藝術
村之類。這才是我們所需要的，然而香港卻沒有。要填補缺失，舊工廈似乎就是我們唯一的出路。

利德裕：說起政策，我倒覺得各自為政並非政府本意，如果
我們不想這種困局永無止境的話，有什麼辦法呢？

知道要一夜之間改變政策是很難的，不過在現時的框架下，我們也可運用一點策略，請社區裡每個人都踏出多一步，那樣我們跟那個理想也許又會拉近了一點。一個社會只要條
件許可，就可自發做事，而這些社會自發的活動，或許將來會演變成一種文化或是次文化。
我覺得我們應從小處入手，就是那些我們經常做的事情；我們不一定要把焦點放在什麼豐功
偉業上。
- 馮宜萱

馮宜萱：我們都知道要一夜之間改變政策是很難的，不過在
現時的框架下，我們也可運用一點策略，請社區裡每個人都踏出多一步，那樣我們跟那個理想也許又會拉近了一點。我認為這個圓桌論壇系列就是讓我們衡量一下香港有什麼可用的體制
和資源，可以幫助社會。不一定要由政府帶頭，也可以由社
會、學者或者專家來發起。我們可以眾志成城，只辦一件事，
只是這件事會是什麼？找出答案以後，我們就可加以推動。先前我也提到，香港建築師學會製作了一套教材，但下一步要做什麼呢？如何善用這套教材呢？與此同時，我們所有人都可以循教育途徑著手，並發掘這座城市的瑰寶。又或許我們可以向公眾做更多宣傳。
記得我還在唸大學時，有位教授跟我說：「香港雖然不美，但很富足。」他口中的「富足」，是指我們通常不是由政府牽着
鼻子走的，因為一個社會只要條件許可，就可自發做事，而這些社會自發的活動，或許將來會演變成一種文化或是次文化。
以粵劇為例，根本沒有政府政策牽頭，但粵劇卻成了我們的本
土文化。我們可以做些什麼，來讓這種文化得以在社會持續
下去？談到我在房委會的工作，許多年前，我們在一個屋邨訪
問租客到底想怎樣使用邨內這片有蓋空地，他們說想建一間茶館，我們就照做了。我們建了一個貌似茶館的地方，但沒有給租戶端茶遞水，他們自然會自備茶水和報紙，彷彿把家中客
廳搬到這片空地去。這就是我們為公眾做實事的方式，他們可
以為自己的城市設計一番，可以說自己設計了這個地方，將來
也可以為這設計自豪。所以我覺得我們應從小處入手，就是那
些我們經常做的事情；我們不一定要把焦點放在什麼豐功偉業上。當然，重大的政策也可以推動和帶領文化發展，我們也很渴求，但即使沒有這些政策的推動，我想我們還是可以憑自己的小小力量向前邁進的。設計中心可以幫忙向公眾宣揚這種設
計意識，然後再透過一些活動去融合每個人的小小付出，我覺得這對文化發展也是有益的。
換言之，我們不單只要從政府方面入手，也可以在基層市民或
中層官員方面打主意。我們需要各個階層形形式式的投入和參

18

討論摘要

與，方能成事。我想這就是香港運作的方式吧，其他有些城市
的領導層很強勢，能夠大刀闊斧推行政策，至於香港則是以靈
活和創意兼備而聞名。香港人在很多方面都創意十足，不只是
設計，連我們營商或是打理生意的方式都充滿創意。這裡頭是有一種設計元素的，或者叫它設計的基因，但我們要如何讓這基因發芽呢？

4000 萬內地遊客都湧到市區來，我們的確要深思熟慮，制定
一個城市改善日程去解決這問題。
Patrick Bruce：這情況也不只限於社區，欄杆的問題就好像
傳染病一樣，蔓延到所有郊野步道上去。
Peter Cookson Smith：沒錯，這些就是我們要處理的問題。

利德裕：我不肯定香港未來會否出現一位市長，這個想法似乎很吸引；但目下我們可以做些什麼去提升各行各業的設計觸
覺呢？
Peter Cookson Smith：我不認為香港需要一位市長，這幾乎
是不可能的事，但或許可以有城市管理專員、海港管理專員
或是西九文化區管理專員等等。找個人專責在市內推動有益事
物，協調各方，又截停難以持續的事，有什麼不好嗎？馮宜萱
指港鐵九龍站內部就是綜合用途發展的實例，其實很多港鐵站
也是一樣。看看九龍站外圍那幾條街，幾乎是整個市區裡最呆
板乏味的地方。要是有個人會捍護城市利益的話，這種情況就
可以及時糾正過來了。
但事實上市內沒有這麼一個人。我們有諸如市區重建局的官方機構，可是他們本質上都是自行其事，政府給他們撥款資助，
又藉一條異常簡化的條例賦予他們極大權力，容許他們把社區參與拒諸門外，市民無法共建美好城市。這個問題不只在於重建，也不只在於建一個車站再把發展項目盡量塞進去 ─ 可以說，公共領域的可行性才是比任何事情都更重要。
馮宜萱：關於這點我有少許補充。在地區層面，每一區都有
自己的民政事務處和區議會，如果民政事務處可幫忙推動種種
細微的市區設計改善工作，對整體也會有幫助。民政事務處未
必能夠一下子將問題糾正過來，但一步步循序漸進，我們也就離目標近一點了。
利德裕：這點看法是重要的若然我們要在全城推廣注重設計的思維，但當中涉及解決資源問題。

我們可以糾正那些看似細微但實質影響甚大的小事。
- Peter Cookson Smith
Peter Cookson Smith：我們可以糾正那些看似細微但實質影
響甚大的小事。上月我跟幾位記者談過，他們全都在採訪同一
宗新聞：過去三年，幾乎每條馬路旁都建了欄杆，延綿數百甚
至數千公里，很醜很低檔叫人很討厭，想必是路政署的傑作，
但事前有諮詢公眾意見嗎？有誰當真支持興建這些欄杆？根本沒有跟公眾溝通過，但這件事偏偏影響到所有人。我有同事說
這些欄杆簡直糟透了，它們把路封住了，令人無法橫過馬路。
這些欄杆全都建在行人路上，離路邊有 18 吋的距離，換言之，行人路變得比原來還更窄了。這麼基本的設計就足以改變我們對市區環境的觀感和使用方式。我在 [灣仔] 駱克道工作，
對這點也就特別敏感。一走到街上，我幾乎動彈不得，再加上我們不只要着眼於教育年輕人
教育要照顧到各階層的市民。這個城市需要改變心
態，學習重視設計、重視設計師
無論是發
展商、政府或其他機構也好，除了要培育設計
文化，也要好好報酬出色的設計。
- 林雲峰
林雲峰：我們不只要着眼於教育年輕人，正如馮宜萱所說，
教育要照顧到各階層的市民。這個城市需要改變心態，學習重
視設計、重視設計師，這正是其中一個我欣賞設計中心以及其他同儕的地方。另一點也很重要的，就是人們的心態，無論是發展商、政府或其他機構也好，除了要培育設計文化，也要好
好報酬出色的設計。遺憾的是，我認為香港在過去幾十年 ─也許不只是香港，世上其他地方亦然 ─ 人們很多時候都只向錢看，立法會議員老是質疑為優秀設計大額付鈔是否值得。
其實，優秀設計可以是實惠又有效的，也為發展商省下不少開支。不過，這種思維以及宣揚這思維的體系還得再進一步發
展或作微調。我覺得香港政府很喜歡採用雙軌投標制度，要不就是錙銖必較，要不就是追捧那些已經頗有名氣的設計師或公司；新晉設計師由於經驗不夠豐富，也沒有許多成名作，在技術方面的得分也就吃了虧。這種事過往大概也沒有幾個人會重
視，不如我們現在就探討一下這個問題，看看有什麼更好的解決方法。我認為培育人才和優秀設計是很重要的，但要先改善
現有體制才能成事。
我也想提出另一個問題，就是未來香港要擔當什麼角色。在我看來，香港可以跟世界各地連結，跟各地設計師以及內地設計
師合作，有機會的話，我們還可形成這麼一個鐵三角，無論在
香港、內地或是海外都能通力合作，香港應能勝任這個連接各
地的角色。香港的法律制度以及跟世界各地有效溝通的能力，
孕育了我們這套獨有的設計體系，許多年來，本地設計師都已對它習以為常。我希望人們能領會這個體系的價值，也希望這個體系可以融入未來的體系之中。據我所知，深圳以及前海的重大新發展，都希望有這種三位一體的合作，形成一種由設計
師組成的合夥組織。我希望各地政府都能認同這種國際合作的價值。
林筱魯：古語有云：「修身、齊家、治國、平天下。」。譬如
先前我們就教育方面討論了不少，不如就正視這個問題吧。
〔灣仔〕大王東街那邊有個小公園，由一班好友構思出來的，
目的正是為了公眾教育，但最終徹底失敗，完全沒有人使用那
個公園。

討論摘要

19

論壇主題：設計．城市．可持續發展
又例如〔灣仔〕摩理臣山道路口放了一隻金龍雕塑，那完完全全是區議會的意思，但那隻金龍正正是 Patrick 口中的 Hello
Kitty 文化。喜歡不喜歡也好，我們就是說，這不合我們心
意，滾出去吧。然而我不認同這種態度，因為我覺得我們必須營造一個寬容的氛圍。我相信講課是無用的，但教訓卻很重
要，人要從錯誤中學習，而不是單靠書本上的知識。這涉及到我們要如何建立一個體制，讓人們能夠作出或是面對在掌握範
圍以內的風險，做得到的話，我就徹底支持地方分權了。李躍
華之前指香港政府在制定所有決策時都過分中央集權，我很認同。我也喜歡在新加坡工作，以前我任職的公司負責設計濱海灣 (Marina Bay)，第一次提交設計大綱要準備什麼呢？不多於24 頁的PowerPoint簡報。但香港的情況又如何？我不是要怪
罪馮宜萱，這並非她造成的，全都是問責風氣惹的禍。更別提內地了，我只需跟那裡的市長喝幾杯酒，就什麼都行了。我不是支持這種方式，但事實確是如此。

是個多產的評論家，但同時由於他熟識這個項目的發展歷史，知道它各方面孰好孰壞。這是否就是我們追尋的呢？這麼一位
意見中肯又獲社會各界尊重的人物？

說到實例，不知你們到過上海田子坊沒有？若把田子坊搬到香
港，老實說，那起碼觸犯了二十多條條例。有任何一個架構或
部門有權力去疏導嗎？這個公園每年吸引上億遊客，但誰有能
力冒這個風險呢？我們的制度並不容許這種設計，也不容許任
何人冒這樣的風險。所以我完全贊同馮宜萱所說，我們面對的問題涉及多個層面，我們要找出解決方法，而不是要怪罪誰。
說真的，如果我們都想解開這制度的死結，那就如馮宜萱所
說，不一定能達到最終目標，但就算不是走了一大步，至少也
可向前邁一小步。

透過實際進行活化項目，我們嘗試向政
府證明這類項目的可行性，讓政府官員也親身參與其中，而非只流於空談。我覺得這種機會
還有很多很多，不只限於古物方面。

姚嘉姍：我倒真的感到時下有不少討論說要促進新的合作模式。我們能否跟新型的基金會合作，再由他們跟政府建立新的關係網絡？非政府組織和社會責任所擔當的角色，真的能促使
政府作出改變嗎？又有沒有新型的體制框架？我能想像把組織
架構圖重新構思或設計，讓某一個群組擁有跟城市設計相關的權力，比如是成立設計評審小組，以及設立籌款部去透過全新
策略為文化藝術尋求贊助。在這方面，私人的慈善家在香港可謂勢力最大。紐約和一些城市也實行「百分之一藝術」，發展
商需把盈利中的若干部分投放入社區，以帶領文化活動。這麼
看來，似乎有辦法創造一個全新的香港城市多面圖，不是從上施壓或是從下而上的政策，而是找出新的方式，簡單而巧妙地
把資源重新分配。但同樣地，我們要怎樣達成此事呢？
馮宜萱：要鼓勵每個社區每位市民去為自己的行為負責。舉
例說，屋邨可多策劃新活動嗎？例如透過活化去建立、啟發和實踐一些活動，從而傳達社區意識、溝通意識以及責任感。可以不局限於小規模活動嗎？那對整體基本架構根本毫無幫助。
以上這些是我們應當提倡的。
今天我們又提到媒體，他們是否也有跟進這些事？他們有否宣傳或是推銷我們的想法？香港媒體做得不很好，我認為媒體也
是一種教育。有問題的並不只是學校教育。
姚嘉姍：我覺得很多人都在談論傳媒或是評論人的角色，提到需要能進行公眾評論的記者。舉例說，倫敦設計博物館的負責人原為一位評論記者，他了解設計項目，也明白公眾教育，

20

討論摘要

利德裕：早前我們在回顧傳媒對「香港設計年」的報導。我得說我對這些記者都評價甚高，他們擁有敏銳的藝術、設計和文化觸覺。大部分記者都不是按我們提供的新聞稿來報導，而
是親身參與設計年的節目，訪問在場人士，再作出報導。我覺得記者們十分專業。現時有更多廣播時段談論藝術、設計及文化等議題，不過新聞記者仍總是按新聞價值去選擇性報導新聞，也許這又是另一個問題。我們在設計中心創辦了很多教育性節目和知識分享平台，老實說，我們並沒有傳授人們什麼，
都比較像是經驗分享。我們會邀請設計大師作演講，分享他們
的見識。但我們要如何更好地培養出創新精神、這份靈敏，成為我們的基因和文化一部份，實在值得探討。

- 林筱魯
林筱魯：我可以分享一下我在古物保育方面的嘗試。幾年前我跟曾蔭權 [香港特別行政區前行政長官] 談起這個議題，其實特區政府坐擁了為數不少的文物建築，卻荒置了它們。現時
這問題還未完全解決，但情況是好轉了不少。第三次跟特首討論同一個問題時，我按捺不住，質問他為何要繼續荒置這些
建築，結果備受所有人包括我的指責？跟非政府組織合作，你
會面臨什麼市場風險嗎？不就跟這些合作伙伴一同面對問題好了。要是合作失敗了，就不再跟他們合作便是。我不會聲言某
座建築的最佳用途是什麼，只要我們保育這建築越久，就有越
多可能性，這是不斷演化的。在我看來，關鍵是我們不可拆掉
這些文物建築，而我很高興上屆政府亦予以認同，於是衍生
出活化歷史建築夥伴計劃。我肯定這計劃會經歷不少失敗，但三年也好，五年也好，我們到底能夠轉換合作伙伴，而在過程中我們還獲得許多專業經驗，有來自非政府組織的，也有來自
創意專才的。每個活化項目都有經驗豐富的人士參與，我們也
培訓了許多創意人才。透過實際進行活化項目，我們嘗試向政
府證明這類項目的可行性，讓政府官員也親身參與其中，而非
只流於空談。我覺得這種機會還有很多很多，不只限於古物方面。遺憾的是，即使我們按着政府的制度辦事，但某些風險還是不容許的，例如制度要求護欄須符合現時的標準，我就指過
往60年都沒有人從那個護欄跌下來，怎麼還要改動這護欄呢？
沒完沒了的爭論，但這只是其中一個例子。由於古物保育是我
的工作，我才試着用這方面作例子，但我肯定其他很多範疇也
遇到同樣情況，這點 Peter 應該很認同吧？試驗計劃在政府內
總是允許的。
馮宜萱：試驗計劃是很穩妥的，萬一失敗，不再推行就是了；成功的話，就繼續進行。

Ester van Steekelenburg：這點說得真好。跟進 Bruce 所言，現有計劃根本未能配合現時柴灣、觀塘、舊北角等地區的情況。我很欣賞這個活化計劃，當中也有一些確實不錯的成功例
子，比方說那個中醫藥保健中心，可惜這些項目 [規模] 太小了。我也看到失敗的個案，比如牛棚藝術村 [由屠場翻新改造
而成的藝術村] 就總是空蕩蕩的，什麼活動都沒有。賽馬會創
意藝術中心是另一個失敗例子，要是你平日到那邊去，就是射
大砲也沒有人會聽到，因為那裡根本空無一人。如此說來，那些叫人興奮的事情是有的，但有一些嘗試雖然出發點是好的，
也計劃妥當、講解清晰，可偏偏就像是缺了那份勁，這類供應
未能滿足真正的需求，我認為這點非常重要，而能夠帶動改變的正是 20 至 30 歲的一代。談到教育時，[我們應着重] 教育
小學生和中學生，但帶動下一代改變的人卻是現時 20 至 30歲的年輕人。我在工作上也接觸過不少這個年齡層的人，他們
有在香港唸書的，有在澳洲唸書的，有在美國唸書的，全部都去過外國，卻也都想留在香港。這可是好消息。要知道他們
可以到悉尼、紐約、倫敦或是阿姆斯特丹工作，但他們想留在香港，因為這裡有吸引力。這群年輕人想要走出小心經營的環境，到繁華熱鬧的地方去。我提議設計中心真要嘗試接觸這一輩人，替我工作的這班年輕人正正是會到觀塘去的一群，當我
問他們周末有什麼活動，他們的故事比我的要有趣多了。我認為這一代人就是能夠帶動改變的人。

就可建成一個完整的交通系統，往返珠江三角洲各地只需 30
分鐘。這一切都在進展當中，快將看到成果。我們都曉得幾個
城市的政府在商討深圳的發展和其他事項，但我們卻從不清楚內情。我真的認為我們要留意事態發展，心理上也得承認香港
不是自成一角，而是整個發展迅速的地區的一部分，否則我們
就會越來越孤立。在不久將來，我們也很可能見到形形色色的
人口遷移，為工作的、為享樂的，甚至乎為團聚的。同樣地，
我並不認為我們對此已充分掌握。我們也的確成立了一個處理
人口政策的委員會，又有一個相應的房屋委員會，這些都是很
重要的。香港未來 20 年打算新建 45 萬個住宅單位，但兩地邊境人流管制可能會再放寬，會有更多人穿梭兩地。

利德裕：設計意識、創意和創新是關鍵。馮宜萱也提到在制
度規限下尋求進步。政策的制定應具遠見，並顧及基層的發
展，為創意奠下發展空間，以及我們保貴資產如人才、基建和
文化內涵的發展。我不認為我們能夠輕易改變這個制度。大家
還有什麼想法或論點嗎？

姚嘉姍：我覺得這次分享真的很棒，令人很雀躍，希望未來
可舉辦更多這類座談會，有系統地匯聚各種聲音和意見，再向公眾反映。我覺得我們擁有這些條件的，只是需要一個交流平台去檢視事項的優先次序。我們要先辦好公眾教育還是發展精
英教育？我答不上來。我們有沒有一位高瞻遠矚的領袖，透過所有人都認同、期待和景仰的方式去推動文化界和創意行業
呢？抑或我們要繼續透過各個零散的委員會去達成共識，才能
建設美好香港？關鍵還是在於找到平衡點。我想大家出席這個論壇，就是因為我們都躍躍欲試。但我認為在做協調和感興奮之餘，也要了解將來，就是將來的人口分佈。誰是我們的受眾？我們是為了誰建設這座城市呢？我不時會問我的學生，你
的朋友是誰？你的人際網絡有哪些人？我覺得我們要更了解這一代人，也要對未來有更深入的認知。總的來說，將來仍有很
多事情，需要我們共同努力。

珠三角融合對香港發展的啟示我們要留意事態發展，心理上也得承認香
港不是自成一角，而是整個發展迅速地區的一部分，否則我們就會越來越孤立。
- Peter Cookson Smith
Peter Cookson Smith：在城市發展方面，香港和深圳之間的經濟聯繫正在不斷演化，有時我更會疑惑香港的盛事是否要被深圳那邊超越了。我對於港深兩地的雙城融合活動不太清楚，不過最近廣東省政府倒是推出了各種措施去加快珠江三角洲的地區融合，重點放在南沙、前海、深圳和珠海幾個地方，目標
是協調城鄉發展，屬於「十二•五」計劃中的優先項目。他們
把這個全新區域稱為示範區，面積大約 800 平方公里，幾乎跟香港一樣大。我認為這些發展區，加上位處地區核心的示範
區，會對香港特區的策略性發展造成重大衝擊。
不過，我覺得我們也應放眼於這些發展為香港帶來的機遇。珠江三角洲的融合能為我們提供空間，建立工業和服務中心。它
亦覆蓋五個國際機場 ─ 分別位於廣州、深圳、珠海、香港和澳門 ─ 亦加快了三個主要交通樞紐的建設。不出三年，我們利德裕：港深文化創意論壇 [一年一度由香港設計總會、香港
設計中心及深圳市工業設計行業協會合辦的節目] 將於下星期
舉行，其中一部分是對政策、產業發展方面交換最新看法，例如前海的發展。那肯定會兩地的設計和商界帶來很好的機遇。
未來在中國內地強大的經濟實力支持下，港深兩地合作將與日
俱增。
Peter Cookson Smith：假如我們要發展知識型產業，斷不可能單打獨鬥，我們得集結合適的人才、誘因機制以及關係網絡，方能達成目標。

利德裕：昨晚我在 Twitter 上讀了一篇文章，題為 Chief
information officers need to have design thinking，我看這題
目很有意思，就繼續讀下去。內容很有趣，作者指許多公司跟
金融和分析機構合作，想要測量公司表現，但整個遊戲規則正在轉變，快樂指數、同理心之類從來不是公司的考慮因素，現時卻也成了量度指標，當中同理心就跟設計思維有關。
跟以往的圓桌論壇一樣，我們會將嘉賓們討論內容整理輯錄成
摘要，公開發佈。圓桌論壇的本來構思是作為設計中心的試驗計劃。設計中心是行動型的，而且一直會如此，我們希望透過「設計驅動改變圓桌論壇」系列，倡導持可續發展的概念。
多謝各位。

討論摘要

21

forum title : DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY
Edmund Lee: If you recall, last year Hong Kong Design Centre (Design Centre) supported the government topromote 2012 as the Hong Kong Design Year. You mightalso recall that we had a theme set for “A City Driven
by Design”. We thought it would be good to not just
do it for one year and then stop. That’s why at the endof last year, we kick started what we call an advocacy
initiative in terms of this Designing Change roundtable.
We’ve talked about design, culture and society, as well
as design and economy. Today, we’re talking about thecity’s sustainable development. The Design Centre’s role
is to promote and advocate design leadership in the community and business. We respect architects and designers as serious professions. The Design Centre’s role is tosee how these professions can help contribute to the betterment of society, to make a better place to live, workand play. That’s why if you look around you today, we
have a mix of participants, with backgrounds as architects, as designers, and mixed as both architects and designers. We’ll use it as a platform to start the dialogue.

But I think we’re tired of just talking, so how do we turntalk into action? The privileged position at this roundtable
is to take your voices into action and potentially into suggestions for policy transformation.

We’re trying to get into what it takes to become creative
cities. We need to look at how design can make a place
better, and also very versatile, having regard for our conservation and heritage projects, and also West Kowloon
Cultural District development. Marisa and I will keep the
dialogue going. Marisa, would you like to kick start thediscussion?

- Peter Cookson Smith

Marisa Yiu: Thank you, Edmund, for inviting me tohelp facilitate this discussion. Designing change is a very
difficult topic. How do we deal with the transformationof the city? How do we handle the changing political environment and educate the next generation to empower
them to feel that they have a voice, through creativity, tofeel they have public ownership of space in the city? This
will be a very diverse, casual but pointed discussion about
using design as a catalyst for change.
There’s a limitation to how our city is being designed.
Perhaps speakers can start to tell us the issues or problems
you have faced and discuss how we enact change. Somesay Shenzhen is even more creative and much more empowering as a city that has designed better public spaces.
This is contentious, but perhaps not. Also, I think vis-à-vis
the building of talents and emerging design culture - how
do we build this value and what kind of competition or
ways of engagement can we provide? All of you are doing an incredible job for Hong Kong, so please share yourcase studies, ideas or stories that can help us frame theviews on the role of design in Hong Kong for urban development and creative sustainability. Of course, Edmund’srole as the executive director of Hong Kong Design Centre has itself transformed a lot in the last few years. Every
year, there’s the Business of Design Week, which brings
together many forums and people from all over the world.
22

discussion summary

A very simple question: How can design in your own disciplines or your experience be better used to help transform Hong Kong in a more valuable and meaningful way?
We can guide the discussion according to these points.

Diversity Comes Before Creativity
Design seems somewhat peripheral,
as opposed to good urban management,
clear decision-making and a commitmentof government to work towards the public
good. But a design culture does require a
sympathetic and proactive context

Edmund Lee: We realise that there are a lot of things
happening, and not just in Hong Kong. As we start looking at the bigger picture, we can examine the role forHong Kong going forward. I think it was Andrew who
mentioned that we’re talking about the state of plan anddevelopment in China. They have a strategy of spawning to create impact through scale, whereas in Hong Kong
we’re focusing on fewer projects. We can use this as astarter for our dialogue.
Andrew Lam: If we look at what’s happening in mainland cities like Shanghai, Dongguan or Shenzhen, particularly in recent years when it comes to design and creativity.
I term it a spawning strategy - trying to produce as muchas possible and survive. They can afford failures. That’s
really the fundamental issue that we’re facing. My observation is that throughout Hong Kong society, we don’tallow any form of failure. When it comes to promotionof creativity, design, that kind of thing, or West Kowloon
for example, in my view, we should at least accommodate
diversity before talking about creativity. Unfortunately, inthe last 10 years or so, we’ve been trying to nail things
down rather than broaden the system. So we need tochange this attitude before we change the system. In themeantime, other cities are moving on. Of course, the rateof failure can be very high. For example, I’ve just been to
Taipei, where they measure every single historic building in terms of design and creativity. In a way, that’s fine.
But think about it – it could be a system failure. In Hong
Kong, we do a totally different thing. We allow different
kinds of non-government organisations (NGO) to create
their own projects. It could be about design; it could be
about social services. Now I like that very much, not that Idon’t like to push for bigger forces behind design creativity. Could we collectively push for more diversity? Then,say, a platform like West Kowloon would become much
more inviting and alive with different things to attract andinteract. I don’t think the window will remain open forlong for us to react if we don’t act quickly.

Edmund Lee: For us going forward, we’re faced withcompelling evidence of city advancement from global andneigbouring economies.
Peter Cookson Smith: When we talk about design,
we have something of a built-in dilemma. Design in the
abstract sense should come first, and then sustainability. I
have compared the issues facing Hong Kong with other
Asian cities and I’ve talked a lot with planners in various
cities over the last 2 years. One thing that comes across isthat the basic factors are the same, whether we’re talking
about global economics, social and wealth gaps or urban
renewal strategies. Design seems somewhat peripheral, as
opposed to good urban management, clear decision-making and a commitment of government to work towards
the public good. But a design culture does require, as Andrew said, a sympathetic and proactive context. When wemove up the scale from the design of a saucepan to thedesign of a room, the design of a building, and then thedesign of a neighbourhood, we’re going to increasingly
encounter more and more factors that dilute the design
approach, and even the objectives that we’re talking aboutbecome much more complex. I think the various pointersthat we’ve had actually do try to bring out the different
aspects for sustainable design.
Bernard Lim: I very much like Peter’s mention of theproactive contact that we’re trying to create for Hong
Kong to take a role in this region. Andrew’s point about
diversity is also very important. That’s part of Hong
Kong’s ability to offer a mix of cultures and decisions between the Mainland and the rest of the world. A few ofus have been collaborating for the last 6-8 years on theShenzhen-Hong Kong Biennale, where we created a platform for not only Shenzhen, but we also used the platformof Shenzhen–Hong Kong for the Pearl River Delta region
and to attract world-class designers, urbanists, theorists,and designers to come and share what they see as the important agenda for the future of a city. I think it’s important that Hong Kong takes a role in this region, and that
we then bring in the expertise. Last year, we invited Taipei
as one of the cities, and very encouragingly this year, it’svery likely that Barcelona will have a pavilion in HongKong. We bring European expertise to collaborate withus. It’s something that I’d like to see in the future, not onlywith Shenzhen, but maybe also with Shanghai and other
Mainland cities to carry out similar efforts, not just for
one-off events, but through this, it is expected to create asynergy and something exciting for design in Hong Kong.

Public Education & Community
Engagement to Promote Creative
CultureEducation is very important forchildren. I think it’s fundamental. If children
can learn about this in their formative years,
it will form a culture and value when theygrow up. It’s very important. We can use to
instil a sense of creativity in everyday life,
even for humble citizens. So we can work
both on the citizens’ side and on the educationside- Ada Fung

Ada Fung: I think that’s very interesting. The Hong
Kong Institute of Architects (the Institute) is driving not
only the Biennale with Shenzhen, but also the Venice Biennale. Right now, we almost have a Biennale every day.
We’re now organising the bi-city Biennale, which will beheld at the end of 2013. We’ve just had the response fromthe Venice Biennale last year in Hong Kong. And we’replanning to find money to fund the Venice Biennale in2014, so the Institute has been making efforts these few
years to make it a regular programme to drive this kindof creativity, and to bring Hong Kong to the world andbring the world to Hong Kong, to create a better city withcreativity in a sustainable programme. We hope this canhelp arouse awareness in the city.
I have some reflections to share on the first Biennale in2006. After the Biennale, in panel discussions just likethis one, we said, how can Hong Kong be creative andso forth, my reaction is that we did not have that kind of
platform in those days. Politicians and educators were notbeen trained in architecture and art appreciation in theirschool days. Very few schools offered art courses for senior secondary schools. How can we bring architecture to
students in secondary schools and to teachers as well? We
have four subjects - visual arts, science, liberal studies,design and applied technology. So we organised teachingkits and then they had tools to bring students and teachers
to see what we have in the city. It was a first step, but avery important step. Education is very important for children. I think it’s fundamental. If children can learn about
this in their formative years, it will form a culture andvalue when they grow up. It’s very important.
The Housing Authority can’t afford expensive pieces ofart or sculpture, but we do encourage community arts.
In Lam Tin estate, architects worked with the tenants tobuild a sculpture using Chinese dim sum as a theme, anddiscussion summary

23

forum title : DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY
built a sculpture in the shape of Infinity and put it in thegarden. These are the things we can use. They used plastic
rice bowls to build the name blocks. These are the things
that we can use to instil a sense of creativity in everyday
life, even for humble citizens. So we can work both on the
citizens’ side and on the education side.
Hong Kong has a lot of creativity that we haven’t beenbringing to the public, so I think we should take stock ofwhat we have, not what we haven’t got, and then publicize it. Singapore is very good at doing this. They say,
we’ve got this, and we’ve got that. I once visited Singapore with my secretary for a public housing issue. The
Singapore officials said that their citizens always praise
Hong Kong, and we said, Hong Kong citizens always
praise Singapore. We said, if we exchange our citizens,
we’ll have very happy cities!
I think it’s time for Hong Kong to really take stock seriously. A lot of things have not been discovered. We needsomeone who can do this in the media. Because, as we
all know, the media are usually very critical and sensitive. They won’t publicise the good things, but they dopublicise all the cynical things. I don’t think it’s bad to be
critical, but I think we have to have a balanced view – becritical but also give recognition where it’s due.

Marisa Yiu: Ada, I think it’s really fascinating from yourexperience in how you viewed the transformation in the last
decade, and I do feel that there’s a collective engagement
to drive and promote these ideas. We all work intensely tomake change, and more and more in the last year myself.
I’ve been reflecting on these issues. We have been doing
community engagement, and done public forums, but how
do we ensure it’s “quality” design as an output? How do
we value mass consumption to empower cities’ economies?
The Dutch do this really well in Holland, their high-quality
level of design in cities, referring to what Peter was saying- the saucepans, the proportions, the quality, the materiality - how do we ensure this gets connected to the public as avalue? I can hear the collective frustrations and difficulty toachieve. We have to focus on the positive, but how do newtactics or rules or new strategies illuminate that? We always
have these debates, and I would be curious to see how you
would prioritise, if we move beyond public engagement,
how do we design better our city in a more substantial way
that would elevate the “quality”?

24

discussion summary

It’s not just putting it into the formal
education. It’s also the broader education
for the general public. It’s a sort of schizoid,
multi-personality existence. The binding
quality of cultural awareness – not justeducation, just awareness - is missing- Patrick Bruce

Patrick Bruce: Ada’s comment on the importance ofpushing down into the education system is absolutely fundamental to the whole process. It’s not just putting it into
the formal education. It’s also the broader education for
the general public. Education is crucial. Forgive me, I’m
not absolutely anti-Hello Kitty but I do feel that the Hello
Kitty culture is absolutely about the lowest common denominator you can get. It’s a measure of sophistication.
We have enormously sophisticated products in the market
that are often supporting this Disneyesque sub-culture of
reduction of culture to this very low common denominator. And honestly, that must be a function of education.
We are missing something fundamental in the education
process. You see it every day. We know that architects
are working in practices and some of them are delivering
very important, extremely expensive pieces of hardware
out there in the environment. And they’re being entrusted
to exercise finesse in their judgement on a daily basis. But
you also know that a good proportion of them are goingback to a Hello Kitty environment when they go home
at night. It’s a sort of schizoid, multi-personality existence. The binding quality of cultural awareness – not justeducation, just awareness - is missing, I don’t know why
that’s missing. I can’t put my finger on it.
Ester van Steekelenburg: In my country [the Netherlands], I do consultancy work as well, on heritage preservation and urban renewal. But a couple of years ago, we
also started here in Hong Kong to design more fun products that focus on the city - treasure hunts for children,
corporate activities, and the Amazing Race format – basically forcing ourselves to descend down to the Hello Kitty
level, but with the purpose of raising awareness about cultural identity and heritage. It was incredibly popular andlots of fun. People do like to go out to those neighbourhoods and it doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about
secondary school kids or teenagers or corporates, because
most people sit in their office or at school all day. They
have to digest all the information that comes to them.
They have very little time to reflect and think creatively.
In our activities, typically, we allow them to do that. But
it’s not something that is made easy for us in Hong Kong.
We face a lot of problems with liability issues and withpermits. Hong Kong is not a very conducive environment
for these types of activities. Whereas when we do it inother cities in this region – in Singapore, in Vietnam -it’s easy, and it’s not only easy, it’s embraced. It’s embraced by policy makers and by government departments.
Here, I find that the contrary is true. So although I see that
there’s a need for it, and enthusiasm, and that people do
not necessarily just want Hello Kitty, it’s difficult. I reallylike your point about the new generation. That’s where it
should come from. For those kids that are in school now,
becoming an architect or a designer should be a perfectly
acceptable choice of profession, which it is currently not.

We are burdened by a lands and financesystem that has proved good for government
finances, but bad for almost everything elsein terms of living quality, conservation andregeneration- Peter Cookson Smith

Peter Cookson Smith: The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) are keepers of the city. Mallory Street - that
innocent little terrace in Wan Chai, has been renovatedand of all things is going to be a comic museum. So it
adds up to what Patrick has defined as a Hello Kitty culture. The first pointer that we have in our Swat Sheet wasvery much to do with the crucial side of this ‘creative andprogressive city in Asia’ line, and how we should addressthat. It seems to me that one of the central issues here in
Asia, is that many cities are incredibly powerful. It’s acommon line of thought these days that international primate cities have more in common than cities within any
one country. Many cities have populations in excess of theremainder of the country. So organisationally, quite interesting things come out of this situation. I would say thatHong Kong is right at one end of that spectrum – there’s
just nowhere else like it in terms of the way it is governed, its compactness, and in terms of its systemic political organisation and parameters, and what that implies forphysical development. I still find it very difficult to knowwhether to be relatively gloomy or cautiously optimistic
in terms of this being a progressive city. What do we actually mean by that? I think there are two distinct sides tothis – on the positive side, we have excellent urban management, a relatively corruption-free regime, and the ruleof law – everywhere I go, the rule of law comes up. I wasat a seminar this week at the Central Policy Unit (CPU)and this is a very fundamental thing in talking about what
we actually need in terms of building up the economy.
But on the not-so-positive side, given that we are a very
sophisticated city with a long-term, respectable government structure, we are burdened by a lands and financesystem that has proved good for government finances,
but bad for almost everything else in terms of living quality, conservation and regeneration. To address Andrew’s
point, I’m not saying that we have failure built into thesystem, but we do have basic functionality issues built
into it. It’s very difficult to point to anything around theharbour, and say, ‘that is a fantastic piece of design’, orto point to something and say ‘they got it right’. I would
question whether our famous commitment to free market
principles, which has generated enormous wealth in certain areas, but a massive social and wealth gap, should
really be simply geared to bringing higher returns to government. I suppose what I’m saying in a very roundabout
way is that we have a lot of things to pick up on, and wehave to rely on Government to a large extent. We’re trying
to house 1.3 million people, probably in the [Northeast]
New Territories. How can we best do it? How can weincorporate betterment of the city within that process as
well, so that we’re not just building more low-cost housing, more shoebox units, but trying to resolve the qualityof living issue, of which housing is a very basic element?

Marisa Yiu: But how can we innovate? I’m curious
about Ada’s work for the Housing Authority. How does
the regulatory process support innovation? Also Antony
maybe can share a bit, as you’ve worked as an architect
and an interior designer. What tools or what have you observed in the last years that could help engage? Besides
building mixed developments or new types of districts
that connect to Shenzhen, how can one design to empower
better sustainable new town systems that have somethingquite innovative in terms of urban living, domestic interiors and sustainability? Those are the questions I would
love to see answered, if they are possible.

On Mixed-Use Public Space
There is not a very strong integrationof art, culture and living in the system.
Making references to some cities that have
1% of construction costs devoted to publicarts. Constructions or developments over acertain size will be in competition system.
More art involvement would mean moresynergy and creativity- Antony Chan

Antony Chan: The city is getting smaller. When wewere younger, the city seemed larger. But now the whole
city’s lost to an infrastructure system and it’s very segregated. We are no longer a community. In terms of design,“we are where we live”. Unfortunately Hong Kong is ahighly commercialised city so everything is actually driven by commercial interests, like architecture, like culture,
like city planning. There is not a very strong integrationof art, culture and living in the system. Making references
to some cities that have 1% of construction costs devoted
to public arts. Constructions or developments over a cerdiscussion summary25

forum title : DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY
tain size will be in competition system. More art involvement would mean more synergy and creativity. At the
moment, it just seems that everyone’s doing something
but there’s not a collective aim or task with to-dos andagenda to make Hong Kong a design hub. How do you doit ? There’s been a lot of discussion and cross-examination. Art, living and culture are important components inthe building of a beautiful city. I’m not saying that Hong
Kong’s not beautiful, or that it could not be made beautiful, but the way it’s been built in the past has not helped tocreate a better city in terms of design content.

The role of the government is partly
to look at how public spaces can be enjoyed,
and to ensure that we have enough public
spaces to be enjoyed by the public. We areable to create a very efficient city that is very
accessible to the public, then I think that is amodel that we can give to other Asian cities,
as well as to the growing, very dense Chinese
cities that we’re going to have
- Bernard Lim

Bernard Lim: Hong Kong is a very high-rise, dense
city. For me, one thing that’s very important is how wegive back the public spaces to citizens. We appreciate thatcommercialism and capitalism operate almost to their extreme in Hong Kong. The role of the government is partly
to look at how public spaces can be enjoyed, and to ensurethat we have enough public spaces to be enjoyed by the
public. In the last two years, the West Kowloon Cultural
District Authority organised some competitions that hadvery good design submissions and the winners, too, incorporated very good public domain spaces. The Canadian architectural firm [Bing Thom Architects] proposeda semi-covered but very fluid foyer, which is transparent
to Canton Road. In another competition, the M+ Museum
winning designers were able to excavate the foyer space
down to the MTR-airport line tunnel and to make thatspace part of the exhibition space, to reveal the city to the
public again - the infrastructure, the airport, the railway
link - but to be accessible to the public. This is somethingthat as a concept the authorities are in a position to lookat - how these public spaces can be configured and be exposed to the public. This is something I perceive as important as a policy transformation. The government anddesigners should look at where cities like ours stand. In
public housing in the last decade, Ada and her team haveachieved a lot in providing a lot of the good, very accessible spaces that are built not with expensive finishes, butthat the residents of public housing can really enjoy. Despite the fact that the modular units are small – comparedwith Mainland China, we have small living spaces - but if
26

discussion summary

we are able to create a very efficient city that is very accessible to the public, then I think that is a model that we
can give to other Asian cities, as well as to the growing,
very dense Chinese cities that we’re going to have.

Andrew Lam: Why does Hong Kong have very highdensity? If we try to shy away from that, we may haveto sacrifice the country parks. The key is how we canwisely make use of our available space. I think with all
the talents around, it’s sustainable. It’s frustrating and weknow that there are institutional barriers, but we can makeit happen within the current political and administrative
framework. We look at, be it the Housing Authority orWest Kowloon Cultural District Authority, these institutions which are set up to bypass the institutional barriers.
It’s that we don’t follow the typical planning, building
and land sales programme. But if you put West Kowloon in the public domain that we have and leave it to
the Leisure and Cultural Services Department to manage it, it won’t happen. Even if you design the space, it
won’t happen. I think if we read the book properly, it is
how we actually defend those institutions that the government purposely built to allow flexibility and creativity. I
wouldn’t say there will be no failure, but we need a higher
level of experimentation of all kinds, and test things out.
But the problem is that politicians keep crowding backand saying we want control of this and that. And that’s
what the government is facing. There are lines we haveto clarify, and with too much overlap, it won’t work.
To make that work for us is a very difficult job.
Marisa Yiu: I love what Andrew has just said. I’m justwondering about this issue of mixed-use district development, from all of your perspectives. Francis told methat he’s worked on many projects in Mainland China
since 2009, and told me he considers himself more ofa Mainland Chinese designer. I’d be curious to know if
we can achieve mixed-use developments similar to Xintiandi [新天地] in Shanghai? What is your response to
Andrew’s statement?
Francis Lee: I work about 80% of my time in Mainland China, so my colleagues say I look like a mainlander, but I still think as a Hong Kong designer. Working in
the Mainland is sometimes easier than working in Hong
Kong, if you can convince your client to accept your idea
rather than sacrifice a lot of time in pitching. I hate towork in Hong Kong now because we have to pitch for a
lot of projects and we don’t get paid for these free pitches. That’s why free pitching is one of our association’s
main protest themes. Free pitching damages our industry very much. Talking about the city and sustainability,
I think I would focus on our design people who sufferfrom this free pitching and from those clients that don’t
pay, even though they spend a lot of time asking people tosubmit those proposals. I really appreciate how the West

Kowloon Cultural District Authority is pitching projects.
Those architects get paid, but not for small and mediumsized enterprises and even some consortiums in HongKong. People [Clients] get used to taking advantage ofdesigners, asking them to do a lot of work and proposals,
but in the end, they get some of the ideas from different
designers and mix them up, and these become the clients’new ideas. That’s a point that the Hong Kong design industry should pay attention to.

Edmund Lee: When we started framing this roundtable, Designing Change, we thought about many different
names. Designing Change doesn’t mean change for thesake of change. Perhaps in the following discussion, we
can focus on going forward - Hong Kong in comparison
with our neighbouring cities’ development, in terms of
mixed-use public spaces. We need to go forward because
we are not in a status quo. We are living in a difficult situation. Even for myself, I have visited several Asian cities Bangkok, Seoul, Singapore, Shenzhen, Shanghai and Beijing – all these cities are moving fast. I’m sure they cansustain the development because they have commitments
and opportunities. But for Hong Kong, as a mature city,
how can we stay agile, how can we reinvent ourselves,and become increasingly sophisticated without reducing
ourselves down to simply efficiency and some mass culture? How can we develop Hong Kong as a creative city
to live, work and play? That’s the kind of thing we canfocus on.
Peter Cookson Smith: I think the first thing is thatwe’ve got to play on our strengths, and the second thingis that we’ve got to get beyond design. I do take Bernard’sand Andrew’s points because we do have a sustainable
city in many ways. We have a compact city with high density. We have 70% of the population living within about
10 kilometres of the urban core, which is highly unique.
We have a very large amount of urban space. I think I
worked out on the back of an envelope some years agothat just about everybody in Hong Kong is within about
25 minutes travelling time by public transport of a beachor a country park. But I think we do need some sustainability yardsticks that go right across the board. The subject of a CPU seminar the other day was knowledge-based
economy and where we are moving in Hong Kong terms,
because there is a little bit of a crisis in confidence andexpectation in Hong Kong, particularly among young
people. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) member countries have certainly
come to grips with knowledge-based economic growth,
although I think we have to yet identify in Hong Kong a
strategy for economic diversification. That at the moment
is lacking.
The second thing here is the quality of life. We’ve fallen
into a trap both on the environmental front and on thevery basic unit of living quality. What suited Hong Kong
two generations ago simply is not consistent with existing
expectations, so we have to look at quality in our housing. The third is the betterment of the city. For all sortsof reasons, we have a degraded public realm in the city
itself, and a government that frankly ties itself into bureaucratic knots trying to sort it out. Take Marisa’s point
about mixed use. We have always had a drive towards
constant redevelopment and even our Buildings Ordinance supports this. We could well call our URA the Urban Redevelopment Authority. Actually, it should be a regeneration authority where the process is just as importantas the product. But we have this constant drive towards
redevelopment, and redevelopment does not necessarilytranslate into the sustainable objectives that we’ve all set
for ourselves. Every planning document is full of things
like variety and diversity - all these wonderful things that
we want to see in the city and around our waterfronts - but
actually we’re getting less and less of these. Hong Kongis far less diverse than it ever was, and we’re getting amore commodified environment. So I do take Bernard’s
point that we need to address this issue, and we should be
looking at these opportunities in terms of urban design.

Patrick Bruce: It is very interesting, Peter. I think thatwhile opportunities are reducing, I suspect that demand isincreasing.
Peter Cookson Smith: And demand is increasing
for improved connectivity and a holistic way of looking
at city environment too. I was giving the example of the
Megabox. Here we have this retail block in the middle of
Kowloon, technically three minutes’ walk from Kowloon
Bay Station, but you can’t walk from one to the other;it’s impossible. So they built this enormous stand-alone
retail centre and then you have to take a shuttle bus tocommute between the retail block and the train station.
It takes 10 minutes on the bus. It just amazes me that wehave planned our environments like this. It is actually nota design problem. Primarily, and I speak as someone whocarries out planning consultancy work for government, it
is because we are overwhelmed by the priorities that are
given to the technical and functional issues - the infrastructure, the roads, above everything else.
Edmund Lee: Can we go into this a little bit? It’s interesting to talk about the lack of sustainability yardsticks.
I reported to the Legislative Council a few weeks ago,and myself and the administration faced a question very
similar to that: What’s the measure or impact of government investments in design and cultural developments?
You certainly need something to help, not to perpetuate,
but to allow us to continue on our mission to better society’s development. And we could focus on minimising redtape. Perhaps that’s not necessarily just the government’s
problem because we are all part of the system. What we
discussion summary27

forum title : DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY
can do to get ourselves out of the deadlock? Society must
progress. Could anyone talk about yardsticks and measurements?

Andrew Lam: Frankly speaking, these kinds of yardsticks, are never on the leader’s agenda. It’s about thequality of communication. When you look at democracy,
everything else is always like that. My first experienceon public participation about 30 years ago at least, people were talking about nails and screws and that kind ofthing. It’s a matter of whether we can and how we cancreate an effective platform to drive the discussion. That’s
what we’re lacking at the moment. In the past, different
professionals were trying to create this kind of platform.
But [the questions is] whether the voice can be amplified
through different channels. Unfortunately, at the moment,
it’s not effective enough. Again, I totally agree with theimportance of advocacy. That’s exactly what we’re trying
very hard to do on the antiquities and conservation side.
We have to pick the right point. I’m an extremely proactive person. We had a meeting yesterday talking about
conservation of Tai O. What are we conserving? That’s
the question. No one can really answer that. I like to quote
one of my good friends. He said, come on, Hong Kongis a Formula One city where we don’t use a bicycle approach. I appreciate very much what Barcelona did as theacupuncture approach but we have to work very hard tofind the right point to make it work. If you put the pin in
the wrong spot, blood comes out. As professionals, wehave to really spend a lot more time on this issue.

We have all of this mixed-use
development by default perhaps more thanby design, but it is there. We have multiple
activities, be it economic, educational, culture
or social. The question is how those spaces in
between those things are dealt with- Patrick Bruce

Patrick Bruce: That’s a very interesting analogy, theacupuncture approach. Going back to Marisa’s question
about mixed-use development in Hong Kong, Hong Kongis a compact city and it’s our moniker, if you like - that’s
how we’re seen around the world. As a compact city, given Peter’s statistics, everybody is within 25 minutes of abeach or an open public space, a country park, or an openarea. I would actually argue that Hong Kong is already amixed-use development. Of course it’s a question of doing more, but what do we do and where?
Referring to Bernard’s comment about the public space,it seems to me that we have all of this mixed-use development by default perhaps more than by design, but it isthere. We have multiple activities, be it economic, educa28

discussion summary

tional, culture or social. The question is how those spaces
in between those things are dealt with, that is, the public
realm? How do we connect those things together? That
perhaps is your acupuncture argument. We need to identify those points that are already there that need the connectivity to work, between these multiple activities thatwe’ve got. Just join up the dots and we almost have theunique city that clearly demonstrates that kind of mixeduse approach.

Ada Fung: I would think of Kowloon Station as a
genuine mixed-use development – railway station with
open space, and it will be right next to the West Kowloon
Cultural District very soon. What do we do with that kindof space as a whole? How to join them, link them, makethem work together? Then you can travel from that station
to the airport, and think of how Hong Knog works very efficiently. You can get everything almost at the same spot,
but how to make these spaces interesting, with some kindof creativity that makes you feel it is Hong Kong, andmore open. What’s in it for us? How we can tell people
that, yes, this is the way Hong Kong ticks? I would like to
see more creativity in everyday life so whenever you seea road sign or garbage bin, you can see the Hong Kong
image in it in a creative way - joining the dots to aligndifferent spaces. I think the transport spaces would be appropriate because we have a lot of those spaces such as
Mass Transit Railway (MTR) stations and bus terminus.
How can we make these points of arrival a welcome stopthat can showcase Hong Kong?

Hong Kong’s incredibly diverse, it’sfantastic, it has in the hardware a lot of
qualities, but it seems that the software is
not embraced. Let those associations orgroups participate in the design of urban
space. Allow for diversity – not every estateor MTR station has to look the same. Allow
for failure. That’s an incredibly importantpoint- Ester van Steekelenburg

Ester van Steekelenburg: In the country where I
come from, the Netherlands, our biggest city - Amsterdam has only 1 million people. For planners there, it’s ano-brainer that when you have public space, you make it
accessible, you create events there, you make it lively. It’s
all part of how you are educated as a planner. Here, I don’t
see that, but I would certainly argue that many Dutch city
planners would envy this urban cocktail that we have herein Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s incredibly diverse, it’s fantastic, it has in the hardware a lot of qualities, but it seems
that the software is not embraced, and I think that’s a real
key point. Reaching out to all these creative clusters thatare emerging, with or without government support, andlet those associations or groups participate in the designof urban space. Allow for diversity – not every estate or
MTR station has to look the same. Allow for failure, that’s
an incredibly important point. Where I come from, as longas have you made a decision, you stick with it. If it fails,
you try something else. That mindset is not here. It’s moreconservative. If you are looking at points for the future,that would be my two cents to the discussion.

Edmund Lee: At the Design Centre, every year wework with one partner country [for Business of DesignWeek], and they do give us similar feedback. Maybesometimes we are far too self-critical. We should play
to our strengths and think positively over about what we
have.
Marisa Yiu: I’m a total optimist, and I am a Hong
Konger and thrilled to be here. I do think Hong Kong hasthat role as a model of city laboratory, high-density living,clusters of creativity, but the value is missing. How do you
find that uniqueness to ensure that the city still has a Hong
Kong-driven identity? Is it the public spaces? I remember three years back we talked about redesigning public
spaces in Hong Kong and coming up with a more comprehensive and cohesive way of linking them, and having amuch more interesting landscape strategy, but again, how
do we enact that? Is that one of the agenda items for the
next 10 years of Hong Kong, to focus on these priorities?
Thinking of infrastructure and the aesthetics of infrastructural development is a very different way than just building a barrier. I propose more of a coupling, a strategy thatis not merely cultural and pragmatic but it’s also aesthetic
and playful. These are important “design” discussions. It
would be great to continue with more action items.

Importance of Effective Bottomup Public Consulting Mechanism
The problem is we still have a topdown planning and decision-making
process. We don’t have a proper bottomup consulting mechanism that actuallyworks. We don’t know what to do withpublic feedback once it comes in. We
don’t know how to reconcile public or
professional comments in terms of clear
policy making- Peter Cookson Smith

Edmund Lee: We’ve talked a lot about the wholelandscape development, the bigger picture, some of thestrengths that we have in Hong Kong, and I suggest thatfor what remains of this forum, we focus on this topdown, bottom up-approach, and the kind of educational
enrichment we could bring in to game change or makeprogress. Perhaps we could explore how to develop a design mindset not just for the government but also for thewhole community.

Peter Cookson Smith: Having been involved in education in Hong Kong for quite a long time, one of the issues in terms of developing a more commonly reachable
platform across society is actually dealing with not justthe young generation but the one that went before it aswell. Reaching out to those adults of the previous generation is equally important, and particularly in an Asiansociety, because that’s where a lot of the pressure comesfrom. The parental drivers do not, as Ada mentioned, necessarily encourage creativity in the education system, anddo not necessarily encourage the pursuit of careers in architecture, design or fine arts or whatever, but focus on
the noble professions - a lawyer or a doctor, or maybe
we can accept you being an accountant. We have to get
to grips with educational parameters that facilitate goodurban and design thinking, and help create a generationof young people who think pro-actively about city betterment and public good. This demands creative thinking
and creative teaching.
The other thing that’s really important in terms of culturaldevelopment is to understand that this doesn’t necessarily
happen because of government dictat. Because the government says we’re going to have this particular facility
in this location and we’re going to house all of these worthy cultural activities in one particular place. That is onlythe ‘top’ end of cultural development and isn’t the totality of it. I really think that’s the result of a long-standing
top-down process, but what we’ve lost is the connection
with the bottom-up process. There is a huge disconnect.
We were talking about what’s happening in Kwun Tongright now – what was happening in Kwun Tong last Friday night. It’s vibrant, it’s really exciting stuff, it’s below
the surface, it’s seen by those who are driving it and it’svery local, it’s very personal, and whatever you think of
the end result, the process is highly creative. We’re talking about the sub-culture of music and art and creative
industry, even urban farming that’s going on there in all
the industrial buildings, and the technically imaginativeuse of space that’s emerging out of that. That’s where the20-something-year-olds are expressing themselves. And
unfortunately I feel that most people in the community
actually don’t know anything about it. We don’t knowwhat they’re trying to say. There isn’t that engagement.
And maybe it’s because we’ve actually pushed emerging
cultural activities underground by making it impossible todo this stuff through regular channels because it’s too outof reach. How do you deal with adaptive reuse of old industrial buildings? Because that’s what is happening anddiscussion summary29

forum title : DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY
we need to better facilitate it. There’s a lot of that kind ofactivity we need to tap into and understand what’s goingon in the grassroots.
And beyond the purely creative, you’ve then got the otherarea – the spontaneous use of space. I don’t think we’relistening to that either. There’s stuff going on out there.
You’ve only got to go to the older urban quarters around
Hong Kong to see spontaneous activity going on - temporal transitions and building mutations. We were talking
about mixed-use development before and the use of public spaces. You just go there and open your eyes. The older
mixed-use areas are the most vibrant and most adaptable,
and come closest to what good high density and sustainable urban environment is all about. So there’s something
going on at the local level that in Hong Kong we don’t
acknowledge, we don’t listen to it. We’re too busy doing
the grand plan but without reference to the stuff that is
actually happening. We’ve really got to learn to understand this.

Edmund Lee: We focused on these sessions on education, not necessarily education at the university levelbut in broader terms - how can we prepare our mindsets
for innovation and for change? Peter, going back to you,
you talked about going beyond design. That sounded profound as design is never meant to be just about aesthetics.
Can you elaborate more on that perspective?
Peter Cookson Smith: I think first I would say thatdesign education has actually got steadily better. There’s
no doubt about that. We actually have a design institutenow, quite apart from a multitude of other design bodies,
and we are sitting in the Design Centre, so we are thinking about it and we’re teaching it. The problem is we still
have a top-down planning and decision-making process.
We don’t have a proper bottom-up consulting mechanism that actually works. We don’t know what to do withpublic feedback once it comes in. We don’t know how
to reconcile public or professional comments in terms ofclear policy making. One of the problems essentially isthat we need to start thinking about these things holistically. That’s something really rather obvious, and yet
we’re continually confounded by the famous policy silos
in the government that have got bigger and bigger. And
it’s very difficult breaking through that. Those of us who
try to work with the government and sit in steering committees are confronted by 20 to 25 people from different
departments, with no mechanism for reconciling priorities
for the good of the environment. That’s a problem.
What we obviously lack, too, is real vision for the city. Essentially, we don’t have champions. We have people who
lead various groups but we don’t have something like acity mayor. We’ve sort of bypassed the need for that, andwe abandoned our Urban Council. Now I know how im30

discussion summary

portant city mayors are. I’ve seen what Michael Bloomberg [mayor of New York City] has done in New York. I’ve
seen what the mayoral system over the last 20 years hasdone in London. I was in London studying when we had
all sorts of problems - the Greater London Council (GLC)
was going to pull down Convent Garden. There were anawful lot of street movements. Margaret Thatcher abolished the GLC, and for the best part of the last 20 years,
London was rootless. It had nobody standing up for it, andthe environment declined massively. It was Ken Livingston, the first mayor, and now Boris Johnson, who havereally lifted things up again. You’ve got someone standing up to push forward the right sort of things to make thecity better. In Hong Kong it is now the District Councils
that are getting all the momentum, the power, and a lot ofmoney too actually, so we are actively incentivising division rather than reconciliation.
Ada was talking about the idea of older building spaces
and the building conversions, and I agree with her, particularly about Kwun Tong and to some extent, Wong Chuk
Hang [industrial district on Hong Kong Island]. We arealso seeing a change there too - a lot of regeneration, notjust preservation. And we need to remember that this is
the one last remaining informal sector – they are very ugly
blocks in many cases, but what can be done inside themis really tremendous. However they are privately owned
and subject to the realities of the private market. If there
is a glut of accommodation, as there has been until very
recently – rents are very cheap, small businesses, start
ups, all these different activities move in. However, in justabout every single area of old industrial buildings, rents
are already going up, even in places like Tuen Mun, andthere is very little affordable overflow accommodation.
This will inevitably mean that start-up tenants of thesespaces will become increasingly vulnerable. I think it’sworth mentioning in passing that it’s the very shortfall ofold building space that precludes the growth and development of what we might call cultural fringe activities thathave developed massively over the last 20 to 25 years in
Asian cities and in Chinese cities. I was in Beijing twoor three years ago, on behalf of the Goethe Institute who
had a gathering of their own representatives throughout
China. There were about 40 people who met in Beijing. I
was astounded. There wasn’t one person older than about
32, and the range of cultural facilities and fringe activities
that were going on in Chinese cities is remarkable. One of
the reasons is that they have these old buildings, and users
can initiate their own thing, they can open up galleries,
art communities and fringe theatres. It’s much closer towhat is happening in European cities. I’m constantly getting this feedback from young people at institutes and universities who have gone to China and seen this, and comeback to Hong Kong saying ‘what are we doing here’? We
have nothing like that. There isn’t this informal fringe
where people can get involved. And therefore we’re get-ting the Hello Kitty and comic museums. I’m not necessarily condemning the government for this; in fact Carrie
Lam [the Chief Secretary] has done a very good job of
opening up older public buildings such as the Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road, and the old
Magistracy in Sham Shui Po buildings for a variety ofthings, but they’re costing a staggering amount of money.
If some of these old buildings were in Shanghai, they’dsimply be taken over as sort of art villages or something
like that. It’s what we need, but we don’t have it, and theold factory buildings are about the only thing we have tohelp overcome the gap.

Contriving Flexible Strategies
within Policy Framework
It’s difficult to change policy overnight,
but within the current framework, if we canuse strategies, and each of us in the community
can go one step further, perhaps we can geta bit closer to that kind of ideal. We’re notnormally driven by the government, as society
can do things spontaneously if they can afford
to do it. This can be a kind of sub-culture orculture in the future. We need to start withsmall things that we do every now and then,not necessarily the big things- Ada Fung

Edmund Lee: On the policy side, I don’t think it’s
ever been the government’s intent to have those silos. So
what’s the way out, if we don’t want to perpetuate thatsilo situation?
Ada Fung: We know that it’s difficult to change policy
overnight, but within the current framework, if we canuse strategies, and each of us in the community can go
one step further, perhaps we can get a bit closer to thatkind of ideal. I think this is the area where this roundtable series can help us to gauge, what is the available
system that we have, what resources are available to help
society? It is not necessarily government driven. It canbe initiated by society, academia and professionals. We
can all put our heads together and do just one thing. And
what is that thing? And we can move things ahead. As I
mentioned earlier, the Institute produced a teaching kit,
but what’s the next step? How to use it wisely? And also
we can all go down the route of education and discoverwhat the gems are in the city. Then perhaps we can dosomething more to publicise it.
I remember in my university days when a professor ofmine said, ‘Hong Kong is not beautiful, but it is veryrich’. Rich means we’re not normally driven by the government, as society can do things spontaneously if they
can afford to do it. This can be a kind of sub-culture orculture in the future. Like in the case of Cantonese opera –there’s no policy to drive that, but it is there in the culture.
How can we do something to help sustain this type of culture in our society? Talking about my work in the Housing
Authority, many years ago in a housing estate, we asked
the tenants what they’d like to do with this covered space,
and they said they wanted a Chinese style café. So we didjust that. We gave them something that looked like a Chinese café. We don’t serve tea, and they bring their own tea
and their own newspaper. That becomes their kind of living room in the open space. This is how we made things
work for people, and they have the kind of design thatthey can put into their city fabric, and they can say thatthey own this piece of design and they can be proud of itin the future. So I think we need to start with small things
that we do every now and then, not necessarily the big
things. Of course, we would like to have big policies thatwould drive and steer, but in the absence of those driving
forces, I think we can still do our little part and can moveahead. The Design Centre can help to promulgate or publicise this type of design awareness to the public. Thenthese activities can be drawn up to coordinate the effortsof everybody. I think that will also help.
So we have to start not only at the top, but also at the bottom or in the middle. We need all different tiers and different kinds of engagement and participation to make it workfor us. I think that’s how Hong Kong works. Unlike cities
where there is very strong leadership that can drive things
very forcefully, Hong Kong is famous for being flexible,
and being creative as well. Hong Kong people are very
creative in a lot of ways, not only in design, but in how
we run businesses or how we manage business. There’s akind of element of design or a kind of DNA of design andhow can we make that germinate?

Edmund Lee: I don’t know if we will ever have a city
mayor in Hong Kong, though it sounded very attractive,
but what can we do to have that heightened sensibility fordesign across the professions?
Peter Cookson Smith: I don’t think we need to havea city mayor, which would be almost impossible, but wemight call it a Commissioner for the City, maybe a Commissioner for the Harbour, a Commissioner for the West
Kowloon Cultural District. What’s wrong with having
somebody who would stick up for doing the right thingsand coordinating things in the city, and stopping things
that are unsustainable? Ada, you talked about Kowloon
Station, which is an example of an internally mixed-use
development, but a lot of these MTR stations are exactly
the same. Just look at the streets around the periphery of
Kowloon Station. It’s just about the most sterile situation
discussion summary31

forum title : DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY
in the whole urban area. That’s the sort of thing that could
have been corrected at the right time, if we had someone
standing up for the good of the city itself.
But the fact is we have nobody. We have an authority
such as the URA that essentially operates on its own,
operating under financially directed auspices with a surprisingly simplistic ordinance which give it enormous
powers with little requirement to involve the community
in good city building. The issue isn’t just redevelopment.
It isn’t just an issue of building a station and crammingin as much development as possible – it’s the workability of the public realm that arguably matters more thananything.

Ada Fung: One idea about that. At the district level,
we have district offices, district councils for each district.
If district offices can help drive these kinds of small improvements in urban design in their own district, this will
help. They may not be able to correct overnight, but stepby step, it’s a step further in getting closer to it.
Edmund Lee: That’s crucial if design mindfulness isto promulgate in the city. It sounds like there are someresource issues that we have to address.

We can correct little things that can inthemselves have a big impact- Peter Cookson Smith

Peter Cookson Smith: We can correct little things
that can in themselves have a big impact. In the last month,
I’ve spoken to various journalists who are all doing articles on the several hundred or thousand kilometres ofrailings that seem to have appeared in the last three years
alongside every single road. They look ugly, nasty andcheap, presumably emanating from the Highways Department, but where has this been open to public discussion?
And who precisely has countenanced this? There has beenno dialogue with the public at all, and yet it involves us
all. I have people in the office saying how terrible theyare – people can’t cross the road. These railings are allset 18 inches back from pavements so they’re making thepavements even narrower than they already are. That’s afundamental design thing that alters our perception anduse of the urban environment. I work on Lockhart Road
[in Wan Chai] so I’m very conscious of it. I can’t movewhen I go out. And we have 40 million Mainland visitors
all coming into the urban areas too. We need to deal withthis through a thoughtful “betterment” agenda.
Patrick Bruce: It’s not confined to the urban areas, either. It’s like a kind of disease that finds its way along all
the country paths.

32

discussion summary

Peter Cookson Smith: Yes. And these are things that

we can address.

What we can look at is not only
education for our youngsters, but also as Ada
said, all tiers, all levels. There is a need for thischange of mentality to value design, to value
designers... One thing that is also importantis the mentality, whether it’s developers or
the government or other agents. It is not only
to nurture design but also to pay for good
design- Bernard Lim

Bernard Lim: What we can look at is not only educationfor our youngsters, but also as Ada said, all tiers, all levels.
There is a need for this change of mentality to value design, to value designers. That’s some of the good work that
I appreciate that the Design Centre and other colleagues
are doing. One thing that is also important is the mentality,
whether it’s developers or the government or other agents,
is not only to nurture design but also to pay for good design.
Unfortunately, I think in Hong Kong for the last few decades, very often, and maybe not only in Hong Kong but also
in other parts of the world too, one looks at the economic
side of things and it’s too easy for a legislator to question
whether one should pay that much to get good design. In
fact, good design can come up with economic, effective solutions and savings for developers. But this mentality andthe system to promote such has yet to be further developedor refined. I think that the Hong Kong government likes toadopt a two-envelope system, where too much emphasis ispaid either to the fee aspect or that favours somehow established firms or designers, so that upcoming talented designers who probably haven’t got the good experience or good
samples of previous work that would give them high scoresin the technical part. These sort of things were probably notvalued in the past that much, but let’s talk a bit more aboutthat and find better ways. I think it’s important to nurturetalents, to nurture good design and in order to do so, thecurrent system has yet to be further improved.
A point I’d like to raise is about the role of Hong Kong in
the future. I see that we can play a very good role to linkwith other parts of the world, other designers from otherparts of the world, our counterparts in Mainland China
and if there’s this opportunity that we can form this triangle, whether we collaborate and work in Hong Kong, theMainland or overseas. Hong Kong designers are used toa system that is based on Hong Kong’s legal system, ourability to communicate with the rest of the world effectively for many, many decades, and I wish that one could
see the value of such, and that it is built into the futuresystem. I know that in Shenzhen, and in major new de-velopments in Qianhai [前海] , they would like to see atriumvirate type of association between the designers toform a consortium. That is something which I hope thatgovernments of different cities will see the value of suchinternational collaborative efforts.

Andrew Lam: There is a Chinese saying that we haveto well prepare ourselves before we can manage our families and nation. For example, we talked a lot about education. Let’s face the problem. There’s one little park in Tai
Wong East Street [in Wan Chai]. It’s actually an outcropof public education, driven by close friends. It’s 100%
failure, zero utilisation.
Let’s talk about the Golden Dragon on the corner of Morrison Hill Road [in Wan Chai]. It’s a perfect outcome ofthe decision of the District Council. I hate to contradict
my good friend Peter, but this is exactly what Patrick istalking about. That’s the result of what we call Hello Kitty
culture. Whether we like it or not, we say, ok, draconian,
this is something that we don’t like, off you go. I’m not
for that because I think we have to create an accommodating environment. What I believe is that lectures are useless, but lessons are important. People have to learn frommistakes rather than through books. It’s a matter of how
we can create a system that allows people to make or toface manageable risk, and then I’m all for decentralisation. I think Hong Kong is too centralised in terms of all
kinds of government decision-making, as Francis said
earlier. I enjoy working in Singapore as well. I worked formy previous company and got the Marina Bay job. What
did we have to prepare for the first submission? No morethan 24 pages of Power Point slides. Then compare thatto Hong Kong. I’m not going to blame Ada for that. She
didn’t create all that, but it’s all about accountability. Not
to mention in Mainland China - I just have to fill a few
glasses of wine with the mayor and I can make it work.
I’m not for that, but that’s the reality.
And then when you talk about living examples – have you
been to Shanghai Tianzi Fang [田子坊] if you tried to putthat in Hong Kong, frankly speaking, it violates at least
two dozen regulations. Does any authority or single department or officer have the mandate to make a decision?
That’s a park visited by hundreds of millions of people
every year. Who can afford that risk? Our system does notallow this, or allow anyone to take that kind of risk. So I
totally concur with Ada. It’s a multi-tier thing that we are
faced with, that we have to find the solution for, without
blaming anyone. But really, if that’s our common agenda how to unlock the system – not to take us to the end stage,as Ada said, but if not a big step, at least a small step.

Marisa Yiu: I do feel currently there’s a lot of debate
about fostering new types of partnership. Can we workwith new type of foundations that then fosters a new net-

work of relationships with the government? Does the roleof the NGO and social responsibility actually empower
the government to change? Are there new types of institutional frameworks? I can imagine rethinking or redesigning the organisational chart so there is one power given
to one particular group, with the design of the city, suchas a design review panel. And another fund-raising sector
that builds new strategies for building patronage of thearts and culture. The private philanthropists are the mostpowerful in that sense for Hong Kong. There are also examples in New York or other cities that have implemented“one per cent arts” back to the community, where developers have to contribute a certain percentage of theirrevenue to foster cultural leadership. It seems there could
be a way to create a new multi-diagram of Hong Kong’s
production of a city, and find new ways, not through topdown or bottom up, but actually just a simple shuffling ofresources in a clever way. Again, how do we get there?

Ada Fung: Each citizen, each community should be
encouraged to be responsible for their actions. Say for
housing estates - can they do more to create new activities? Such as revitalisation to create, inspire and do activities that convey a sense of community and a sense ofcommunication and responsibility? Can they do morethan that on a very kind of small-scale level without moving the whole base structure? That could be encouraged.
Another thing that we discussed today is the media. Are
they picking it up? Are they propagandizing and selling
our ideas? In Hong Kong, the media is not doing a very
good job. I think that is an education as well, apart fromthe education problem within schools.

Marisa Yiu: I think a lot of people have been talking
about the role of the media or the role of the critic and aneed for a public critic or review journalist. For example,
the head of the Design Museum in London used to be a
critic and journalist, but he now is the head of a museum.
He understands design project and public education, andis able to be a productive critic at the same time, since heunderstands the design history and critical perspective on
whether a particular development is good or bad. Is thatsomething we’re seeking? Someone who could be a voiceof neutrality but who has respect from the community?
Edmund Lee: I think earlier in the year, we reviewed
the media coverage of Hong Kong Design Year. It is fairto say I have to give a high regard to the journalists, withan eye for art, design and culture. Because many of them
are not based on the scripts that we provided them, they
actually went to the programmes, interviewed the people
and prepare the coverage. I think they’re professional.
We’re getting more airtime devoted to art, design andcultural issues and topics. But still, for the news section,
journalists are forever going after newsworthiness anddiscussion summary33

forum title : DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY
that perhaps is another issue. But at the Design Centre, we
do a lot of programming of an educational type and createknowledge-sharing platforms. And in fact, we don’t teachpeople, and it’s more like experience sharing. We invite
design masters to speak and share their knowledge. But
how we could better cultivate innovation and agility as
part of our DNA and culture is the kind of thing that weneed in Hong Kong.

We’re grooming a lot of creativeminds, and trying to prove to government
officials through the actual project, involving
them, and not just talking about it. I think
we have a lot more of these opportunities,
not just on the heritage side

- Andrew Lam

Andrew Lam: I can share with you what I’m trying
to do at the heritage conservation side. I started the subject with Donald Tsang [former HKSAR Chief Executive]
several years ago. The government was actually holding a huge number of heritage buildings without using
them. It’s still so but it’s improved a lot. The third time,on the same subject, I lost my temper. I said why would
you like to go on with something that you never use andget blamed by everyone, including people like myself?
What’s the market risk that you would have to face in allowing partnerships with NGOs? Let them face the problems that you’re facing. If they failed, let them go. I won’t
argue with people about whether there’s a best use for abuilding; the longer we can preserve that building, themore possible uses there are. It’s an evolving thing. The
key thing is that we don’t take that building down, frommy point of view. And I’m glad that the last government
endorsed that idea, so we have this revitalisation partnership scheme. I’m sure there will be a lot of failures. But
three years, five years down the road, we can change partners. But what we’re gaining through the process is a lotof professional experience, including NGOs and creative
people. We have experienced people on every project.
And we’re grooming a lot of creative minds, and trying toprove to government officials through the actual project,involving them, and not just talking about it. I think wehave a lot more of these opportunities, not just on the heritage side. But unfortunately, even when we’re working
for the government within the system, certain risks are notallowed. For example, we have to have parapets to current standards, and my argument says if no single person
fell off from that parapet in the last 60 years why should
we touch it? I’m just giving an example. It’s an endlessdebate. Heritage conservation is my field so I try to use
these ideas, but I’m sure there are many more other areas.
I think Peter can easily agree to that. Within the government, it’s always permissible to have pilot schemes.

34

discussion summary

Ada Fung: Pilot schemes are safe. If they fail, they
don’t proceed. If they succeed, they proceed.
Ester van Steekelenburg: It is an excellent point.
Going back to what Patrick was saying, it is this mismatch between all these things that are happening in
Chai Wan, in Kwun Tong, in the former North Point, andthe schemes that are available. I love the regeneration
scheme, and I think there are some really good examples
such as the Chinese medicine clinic, but they are small[in scale]. I also see some failures. The Cattle Depot Artist Village [originally a slaughterhouse that has been renovated and developed into a village for artists] is empty.
There’s nothing happening. Another sample would be the
Jockey Club Creative Arts Centre. If you go there on a
weekday, you can shoot a cannon and nobody will hear
it. So there are all these exciting things happening, andthen there are those initiatives that are well-meant andwell-articulated and well planned, but they don’t seemto have that energy. They don’t really supply where thedemand is, and I think that is a really important point. It’s
the generation of 20 to 30 year-olds that can make thischange happen. When we go back to the issue of education, it is primary and secondary schools [that we should
focus on], but the change-makers of the next generation
are in that age group. I work with a lot of them. They are
Hong Kong-educated, Australia-educated or Americaeducated, and they have travelled, and they all want to
be in Hong Kong. That is the positive thing. They could
work in Sydney, they could work in New York, they
could work in London or Amsterdam, but they want to
be in Hong Kong because it is an exciting place. They
want to move away from their carefully crafted environment and they want to be in a place where the action is.
I suggest the Design Centre could try to really reach out
to that generation, because these people who work forme are the ones that go to Kwun Tong. When I ask them
what they do at the weekend, they’ve got more exciting
stories to tell than I have. I think it is this generation thatcan make changes.
Edmund Lee: Design mindfulness, creativity and innovation are key enablers. Policy should capture visionary and grassroots developments for creative place making and asset development for talents, infrastructure andcontents among other things. Ada talked about working
within the system to make progress. This is Hong Kong. I
don’t think we can change the system easily. Are there any
missing points or anything that you want to highlight?

Implications of PRD Regional
Integration for Hong Kong
We need to be subscribing to thisprocess and psychologically recognisingthat Hong Kong is not a fortress but partof a changing region; otherwise we’ll be
increasingly isolated. It’s also quite possiblethat in the foreseeable future, we’regoing to see different types of population
movement for work, pleasure, evendomestic purposes- Peter Cookson Smith

Peter Cookson Smith: One point is the evolving

economic ties between Hong Kong and Shenzhen in city
development. I do wonder sometimes if we are going to
be overtaken by events there. I’m not sure about the Shenzhen-Hong Kong twin city integrity, but the Guangdong
Provincial government has recently introduced various initiatives to speed up the Pearl River Delta (PRD) regional
integration. It’s focusing on Nansha [南沙], Qianhai [前海], Shenzhen [深圳], and Zhuhai[珠海]. It aims to coordinate development between rural and urban areas and it’sa priority of the five-year plan. This new zone as they’ve
called it is a demonstration zone, which is an area virtually as big as Hong Kong, about 800 square kilometres. I
think these development areas, together with the demonstration zone at its heart, are going to have a significant
impact on strategic development in the Hong Kong SAR.
However, it also presents opportunities and I think wehave to be looking at these too. It certainly provides a
space for an industrial and services hub. It reaches fiveinternational airports – Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zhuhai,
Hong Kong and Macau, and it has accelerated the construction of three major transport hubs as well. Within
three years, we’ll have a fully integrated transport systemthat’s going to connect all these areas within 30 minutes.
All these things are happening and we will see the resultsvery soon. We know that there are cross-border government discussions about Shenzhen and so on, but we neverhear much about it. I do think we need to be subscribing
to this process and psychologically recognising that Hong
Kong is not a fortress but part of a changing region; otherwise we’ll be increasingly isolated. It’s also quite possible that in the foreseeable future, we’re going to see different types of population movement for work, pleasure,even domestic purposes. Again, it’s something that I’m
not convinced we have got completely right. We do havea committee on population and there’s the commensurate
committee on housing as well. These are really important

things. We’re talking about building another 450,000 new
housing units in Hong Kong over the next 20 years andyet we might also be having a more porous border withpeople moving across in both directions.

Edmund Lee: Next week there is a Shenzhen-Hong
Kong Creative Culture Forum [an annual event jointly
held by the Hong Kong Federation of Design Associations, Hong Kong Design Centre and Shenzhen Industrial
Design Profession Association], and part of that is to exchange views on policies, industry updates and developments such as in Qianhai. There would certainly be good
opportunities for the design and business communities.
It’s about increasing cooperation between Hong Kongand Shenzhen, having regard for the economic prowess of
mainland China.
Peter Cookson Smith: If we’re working towards instigating knowledge-based industry, we can’t be doing it
in isolation. We’ve got to have the right people, the inducement mechanisms and relationships to produce thegoods.
Marisa Yiu: I think it’s really exciting and wonderful toshare, and I hope we can do this more often. It’s a matterof bringing the voices together in a coherent way and thenexpressing that to the public. I think we have that, and it’s
just the communication structure of examining what thepriorities are. Do we prioritise mass education or develop
niche elite design education? I don’t know. Do we seek
to have a visionary leader who can drive the cultural andcreative industry in a way that everyone respects? Or do
we continue to build fragmented committee-driven consensus? It’s finding that balance. I believe we’re all here
because we believe in making genuine improvements andnegotiating the processes. Yet, I think that mediation andexcitement needs to be understood about the future. The
future demographics, who our audience will be and who
are we building our city for? Often I ask our students,
who are your designs created for? Who are your socialand professional networks? I think we need to understandthat generation much better and the future in more sophisticated way. To summarize it seems like we have a lot
ahead to do collectively.
Edmund Lee: I was reading on Twitter last night anarticle with the title ‘Chief Information Officers need tohave design thinking’. That title grabbed my attention so
I read that. Interestingly, the author said that a lot of businesses work with finance and analytics to measure performance, but increasingly the game is changing. Happiness,
empathy and a lot of these kinds of descriptions that neverappeared on the company dashboard are now being put
into play. That’s the empathetic part of design thinking.
This is kind of the thing we’ll be developing.

discussion summary

35

forum title : DESIGN • CITY • SUSTAINABILITY
Like other roundtables, we would compile notes from thediscussion for dissemination.
The idea is that this is a pilot initiative of the Design
Centre. We’ve been action-driven, and we’ll forever be
action-driven. But to support this action sustainably, we
have to advocate sustainable developments through theroundtable series.
Thank you, everyone.

36

discussion summary

37

Notes38

特別鳴謝 Special thanks

特別鳴謝范誠忠先生為論壇名稱手書命題。范誠忠為退休校長。師從陳語山先生學習書
法篆刻。作品曾入選1992年香港市政局當代藝術雙年展並獲香港藝術館購藏。出版有《范誠忠篆刻作品選 –1986》。
Special thanks to Mr Fan Sing-chung for providing Chinese calligraphy script for theroundtable title. Mr Fan is a retired headmaster. He learnt Chinese calligraphy and sealengraving from master CHAN Yue Shan. His calligraphy work was selected for theContemporary Hong Kong Art Biennial Exhibition in 1992 and also collected by Hong Kong
Museum of Art. He published the “Selected Seals by FAN Sing Chung” in 1986.

免責聲明 Disclaimer

本刊物內與會者意見並不代表香港設計中心之觀點。
The views expressed by the discussants in this document do not reflect the views of Hong
Kong Design Centre.

39