Wednesday, December 15, 2010

《消滅香港》之 尖沙咀天星碼頭

規劃年底清拆 變身露天廣場 尖沙咀巴士總站將成歷史

港府計劃於年底清拆尖沙咀天星碼頭巴士總站,能否汲取拆中環天星碼頭的教訓,令是次清拆行動和氣收場,大家拭目以待。本港的其中一個地標又將成為集體回憶。尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站未來的規劃及用途,現時尚未有最終定案。

「消滅香港是香港政府城市規劃的唯一目標。」 (胡恩威, 《香港風格2.消滅香港》)

你看,不管拆了之後做甚麼,總之一定要拆,拆了再說。

初步的建議是,該地段會興建商場或供遊人休憩的廣場。

商場就商場吧,「或」甚麼?

根據規劃,尖沙咀海傍未來將大變身,其中尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站計劃遷往尖東永安廣場,多條巴士線將「大執位」,巴士總站原址則擬發展為復古羅馬式設計的露天廣場,設有露天茶座及表演場地。

「露天茶座」這個「旅遊概念」說了十多年他們也不嫌悶。「露天茶座」這東西外國遍地皆是,真是「行過左都唔覺」,你自己覺得有趣便以為遊客會有興趣嗎?便是大陸客也不用來港看這些吧,大陸本身已有這麼多「山寨景點」...

... 「遷移尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站是一環扣一環,計劃之中,天星碼頭的上蓋會被清拆,小輪的生意會有影響。如果乘客量愈來愈減少,最終就會取消航線,又成為港人的集體回憶。」

這正是你所想的吧  因為...


現時反而應該考慮遷走巴士總站後,對民生的影響,因為該總站歷史悠久,市民早已習慣坐船之後,隨即可以轉乘巴士。不少遊客更是專程去坐巴士及小輪。

...你遊客要來看這些西方推介的、只有香港才有的特色,我偏要拆掉它們,弄些「復古羅馬式」給你看。這不是蠢能解釋得了的...


中大市場學系教授冼日明認為,

市場學系,厲害厲害...

清拆尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站是有急切性。他指出,尖沙咀是本港一個重要的旅遊區,現時最大的問題空間感不足。事實上,尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站的建築設計已經相當落後,仍然停留在60、70年代的思維模式,不能反映本港作為大都會的形象。

...連建築設計也關你們事。

「本港缺乏一個較有代表性的公共空間,供市民及遊客使用。以地理位置來說,尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站一帶是適合舉辦慶祝活動的地點。所以,尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站實在應該提早清拆,以便可以發揮得更好。」他說,在原址興建一個新廣場,其實可以彌補現時鄰近的文化中心的空間感不夠的情況。從本港的旅遊資源來考慮,尖沙咀是重要地點。目前,尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站所佔的地方反令到尖沙咀的吸引力減低,與鄰近連接的文化中心及星光大道顯得格格不入。尖沙咀碼頭的行人道亦相當狹窄,每逢假期節日非常擠迫,本身的建築物高度太矮,實在有改變的必要。

原來「空間感不足」是因為「建築物高度太矮」,冼日明教授的市場學理論真是高深莫測。或許他說的「空間」是指「樓面空間」...

至於天星小輪,冼日明認為其運作方式已經老化,未來需要活化。一方面可以保留本身的特色,但也要增加時代感。本港在保育與發展兩方面都要取得平衡,更要具備國際視野。

經典句式:要在X與Y之間取得平衡。為甚麼起商場就是發展?而「復古羅馬式」就是國際視野?


「尖沙咀碼頭巴士總站應該一早便清拆,但現時好像得個講字。... 天星小輪也可以扮演歷史回顧及文化回憶的角色,為自己重新提升,成為一個來港旅客必遊的地方,若果本身的內部設計追上時代,又加深歷史感,藉此可以有很高的生存價值,即使日後的票價調升也可以維持營運。

這本來就是「來港旅客必遊的地方」,你唔好攪攪震就已經謝天謝地了。人家好端端的,卻要說甚麼「重新提升」,「追上時代」,「加深歷史感」,一副董朝時的甚麼 「自我增值」口吻...

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Two mafias meet, at last

Is anyone surprised that the 2018 World Cup go to a Mafia state? Surely everybody is afraid of its boss? (Which is not its president, obviously.) And an organisation so corrupt from top to bottom, under the great leadership of that Sxxx Bxxxxxx guy, surely is to affiliate itself with the biggest Mafia? Looks like a perfect partnership to me.

That said, even ignoring all "political" side of things, it's hard to argue against it. When I first heard about England bidding for it, my first reaction was "you're kidding me." The British media have an inexplicable optimism about the whole thing. (Just like every time they think they are going to win the World Cup with "the strongest squad in N years".) Seriously, why should anyone let them host it? They only won the World Cup once when they happened to be the host (and the ball never crossed the line).

And I dislike the idea of joint bids. It's like having joint winners in "最受歡迎女歌星" (or similar awards) every time. I seem to recall there was a 4-country bid to host some tournament. Sooner or later we will see a 16-country bid thus occupying half the places in the tournament...

And... Qatar? (My jaw dropped and I moved to within one inch of the screen when I saw it - and a student happened to be outside at that instant...) I mean... why? ...how? ...who?

And some responses:
Running two World Cups together was clearly a mistake... It inevitably led to people with votes in 2018 doing deals with people involved in 2022.
England 2018 bid chief executive Andy Anson 
I suppose "mistake" is a polite word. Clearly the FIFA lot designed this on purpose; the more such deals, the more chance of making bribery out of it.

Similarly,
Premier League chairman Richard Scudamore said the fact England have facilities already in place appeared to have counted against them. "They have decided to take the World Cups to developing areas," he said. "What's gone against us is not having to build 20 new stadia..." 
 "Taking the World Cup to under-developed countries" is such a grand sounding and politically correct agenda, but do you really believe that such a corrupt organisation will be so well-hearted? You know, building stadia is another great way of getting your hands on bribery money.

Fifa is an organisation that doesn't have to answer to anyone. What did we expect?
Former England manager Graham Taylor

Now that is to the point. I am long against the "no political influence" principle of FIFA. It probably started with good intentions, preventing dictatorship governments using football to serve their political agenda, etc. But now it has become a shield for FIFA so that they are not accountable to anyone or any government (at least some of which need to listen to people). I sometimes wonder, are they even immune to police arrests? Why should all footballing matters in the world decided by this "elected" president of this organisation (elections with even less democracy than Hong Kong's)? Look at their insistence on not using video technology. How can anyone break this big protection racket in this football governing body now?

I dream about a world where some people stand up against Sxxx Bxxxxxx, start a rebel footballing faction, with its own players, clubs and tournaments. With video technology in refereeing decisions, of course. (I know, it's not going to happen. That's why it is a dream.)