stage ii public engagement report submitted to … · the two-month stage i public engagement...

STAGE II PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT

SUBMITTED TO

ENERGIZING KOWLOON EAST OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT BUREAU

Public engagement process on

“Kai Tak Fantasy – International Ideas Competition on Urban Planning and Design”

Social Sciences Research Centre

The University of Hong Kong

September 2014

Social Sciences Research Centre of The University of Hong Kong 1

Contents

Page

Chapter One Introduction 3

1.1 Background 3

1.1.1 The Arrangement of the Competition 3

1.1.1.1 An Overview 3

1.1.2 Competition Area and Preliminary Planning &

Design Requirements 4

1.1.2.1 Kai Tak Running Tip 4

1.1.2.2 Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area 4

1.1.2.3 The Enclosed Waterbody between the Kai

Tak Runway Tip and Kwun Tong Ferry

Pier Action Area 5

1.1.3 The Objectives of the Competition

1.2 Research Team 6

1.3 Stage I Public Engagement Activities 6

1.4 Stage II Public Engagement Activities 8

1.5 Channels of Feedback Received in Stage II 10

1.6 Analysis of Feedback Received in Stage II 11

1.7 Purpose of this report 12

Chapter Two Quantitative Analysis of the Feedback Questionnaire in Stage II 13

2.1 Design of Feedback Questionnaires 13

2.2 Quantity of Feedback Questionnaires 14

2.3 Statistical Analysis 15

2.4 Results of Feedback Questionnaire 16

2.4.1 Assessment of the Entries 16

2.4.1.1 Overall 16

2.4.1.2 Identity 20

2.4.1.3 Creativity 21

2.4.1.4 Neighbourhood synergy 22

2.4.1.5 Sustainability 23

2.4.2 Preference for the Key Ideas of the Entries 24

2.4.2.1 Entry A 24

2.4.2.2 Entry B 25

2.4.2.3 Entry C 26

2.4.2.4 Entry D 27

2.4.3 Demographic Information 28

2.4.3.1 Gender 28

2.4.3.2 Age 29

2.4.3.3 Education Level 29

2.4.3.4 Living District in Hong Kong 30

2.4.3.5 Living outside Hong Kong 32

2.4.3.6 Whether All Shortlisted Entries were

Reviewed 33


Chapter Three Results of the Qualitative Analysis 34

3.1 Introduction 34

3.2 Feedback Channels 35

3.3 Feedback on “What the Jury Should Consider” 35

3.4 Feedback on the Individual Entries 41

3.5 Feedback on the Key Ideas of the Individual Entries 51

3.6 Feedback on Place-making or What Should be

Built at KTF 53

3.7 Feedback on Other Issues 53

Chapter Four Conclusion 59

4.1 Quantitative Findings 59

4.1.1 Entry A 59

4.1.2 Entry B 59

4.1.3 Entry C 59

4.1.4 Entry D 59

4.2 Qualitative Conclusions 60

4.2.1 Assessment Criteria 60

4.2.2 Technical and Design Considerations 60

4.2.3 Specific Area 62

4.2.4 Other Comments 62

4.2.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of Entries 62

4.2.6 Public Engagement 67

4.2.7 Competition 67

4.2.8 Overall 68

Annex A Feedback Questionnaire 69

Annex B Public View Analytical Framework 71


Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Background

The Chief Executive announced in his 2013 Policy Address the proposal of setting up a

recreational landmark - "Kai Tak Fantasy" (KTF) on the site of the former runway tip in

the Kai Tak Development (KTD). The area has excellent potential to be developed

into an attractive world class destination to serve both the local community and the

visitors.

Based on the Kai Tak approved outline zoning plan, the International Ideas

Competition (the Competition) looks for creative thoughts and design excellence for

KTF with a view to optimising the potential of KTF for developing into a world class

tourism and entertainment hub, which will have a synergy effect with the Energizing

Kowloon East (EKE) initiatives in facilitating the transformation of Kowloon East to

sustain the long-term economic growth of Hong Kong.

The Energizing Kowloon East Office (EKEO) of the Development Bureau launched

the Kai Tak Fantasy (KTF) - International Ideas Competition on Urban Planning and

Design in November 2013, and 80 submissions were received up to February 2014.

The KTF Technical Committee reviewed all 80 submissions in March and submitted a

report to the jury panel headed by the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul Chan, for

reference. The jury panel conducted the first-stage adjudication in April, and four

submissions were shortlisted to enter the second stage. The four finalists further

developed and enhanced their design proposals. They were showcased at the roving

exhibitions between 5 June 2014 to 5 August 2014, and public opinions on the design

concepts were also collected. In parallel, the "A Place for You" video contest was

held.

1.1.1 The Arrangement of the Competition

1.1.1.1 An Overview

KTF comprises the Kai Tak Runway, the Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area and the

enclosed waterbody between the runway and Kwun Tong waterfront, with a total area

of about 90 hectares. On the basis of the proposed land uses and broad development

parameters on the Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan, participants can turn the Competition


Area into a distinctive destination open for all, a dynamic urban space for local people

to enjoy, as well as an exciting attraction for tourists to visit.

1.1.2 Competition Area and Preliminary Planning & Design

Requirements

1.1.2.1 Kai Tak Runway Tip

The Kai Tak runway tip is strategically located at the eastern part of the Victoria

Harbour. It enjoys a panoramic harbour view, and is adjacent to Cruise Terminal

Building and the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter. The Kai Tak Runway Tip has the

potential to be developed into a state-of-the-art and first-of-its-kind destination with a

unique theme proposed by the entry submission. The entry submission should

propose facilities to suit a theme to brand this unique place by giving visitors an

all-round experience in learning, shopping and enjoyment. In terms of form, the

facilities do not necessarily have to be confined within building structures, but can

also extend to other areas on the runway tip, including the waterfront, or even spilling

over onto the water body to accommodate various exhibits/displays to provide

exciting place-making experiences. Participants should use the approved Kai Tak

Outline Zoning Plan as the basis for their proposed designs.

1.1.2.2 Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area

Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area is identified in the EKE Conceptual Master Plan

as having potential for further development to facilitate the transformation of KE into

an alternative Central Business District for Hong Kong. The proposed mixed uses

include offices, artist workshops and office studio, retail, restaurants, outdoor

performance area and waterfront promenade. Specifically the provision for art and

creative industries can help transform KE into a business area with special character,

promoting diversity and sustainability, increasing vibrancy of the community and

strengthening the theme of Kai Tak Fantasy.

Whilst the participants are asked to propose suitable water-based activities to better

utilize the piers, any relevant services, operation and maintenance should be taken

into consideration.


1.1.2.3 The Enclosed Waterbody between the Kai Tak Runway Tip and Kwun

Tong Ferry Pier Action Area

Different sectors of the community and professional bodies agree that a vibrant

waterfront is crucial in EKE. Therefore, Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter was included in

the Competition Area to allow the participants to incorporate suitable water activities

in their design proposals so as to make good use of the waterbody while maintaining

its function as a typhoon shelter.

1.1.3 The Objectives of the Competition

The objectives of the Competition were as follows:

to establish an original and easily recognizable design theme that will epitomize

the creativity and energy of Hong Kong;

to create an accessible and dynamic urban space that will not only encourage

ownership by the Hong Kong people, but also attract the attention of visitors;

to complement the overall design and development principles of the KTD and

add value to the venues and amenities in the vicinity of the KTF site;

to strengthen the relationship between the land-based facilities on the

harbourfront and the waterbody between the old runway and the Kwun Tong

waterfront;

to allow opportunities for greater use of the waterbody adjoining the KTF site;

and

to provide a green and low-carbon environment.

A two-stage public engagement exercise was formulated to enable more structured

public engagement activities that foster community support and general consensus on

the design requirements of the Competition and on the Shortlist Entries:

Stage 1 Public Engagement (20 June 2013 to 19 August 2013): to collect public

views on the competition requirements; and

Stage 2 Public Engagement (5 June 2014 to 5 August 2014): to collect public

views on the Shortlisted Entries that will be selected by the Jury Panel among the

qualified entries.

In July 2013, the EKEO commissioned the Social Science Research Centre of The

University of Hong Kong (HKUSSRC) to organize and undertake the two stages of


public engagement on the “Kai Tak Fantasy – International Ideas Competition on

Urban Planning and Design” (the Study).

1.2 Research Team

The team is led by Professor John Bacon-Shone, with assistance from Ms. Linda Cho,

processing and analysis by Mr. Kelvin Ng, Mr. Thomas Lo, Mr. Dicky Yip, Mr. Sonny

Chan, Ms. Lee Hiu Ling, Ms. Rachel Lui, Mr. Danny Chan, Mr. Peter Law, Mr. T.C.

Lam, Miss Frances Fung and Miss Procy Li and logistics support from all the staff of

HKUSSRC.

1.3 Stage I Public Engagement Activities

The two-month Stage I Public Engagement exercise took place between 20 June 2013

and 19 August 2013. To facilitate public discussion, information covering the Study’s

background, a brief description of the objectives of the Competition, Competition

Area and design requirements were disseminated to the public for general reference.

In order to solicit views and comments from different sectors of the community, a

series of public engagement activities were conducted as follows:

Briefing sessions with advisory bodies including District Councils, Land and

Development Advisory Committee, Harbourfront Commission and The Working

Group on Convention and Exhibition Industries and Tourism under the

Economic Development Commission (EDC);

Briefing sessions with stakeholders such as local and overseas professional

institutions;

Briefing sessions with media;

KTF website was launched to facilitate easy access to relevant publicity and

consultation materials and details of the public engagement activities;

Comments were received from the Public Affairs Forum hosted by Home Affairs

Bureau of the interested stakeholders;

Written submissions were received either by email or letter;

Public Consultation Meeting was launched to invite all interested members of the

public.


These engagement activities can be summarized into three categories as below:

(i) Consultation committees:

- Briefing session with the Housing and Infrastructure Committee of the

Kowloon City District Council was held on 27 June 2013;

- Briefing session with the Wong Tai Sin District Council was held on 2 July

2013;

- Briefing session with the Kwun Tong District Council was held on 9 July

2013;

- Harbourfront Commission was held on 15 August 2013;

- The Working Group on Convention and Exhibition Industries and Tourism

under the Economic Development Commission (EDC) was held on 13

September 2013; and

- Land and Development Advisory Committee (LDAC) was held on 6 August

2013.

(ii) Professional institutes:

- Briefing session with the Local Professional Institutions was held on 19

June 2013 and 6 organizations participated ; and

- Briefing session with the Overseas Professional Institutions was held on 8

July 2013 and 4 organizations participated.

(iii) Public:

- Briefing session with the Media was held on 20 June 2013 and 23 media

organizations participated;

- Public Consultation Meeting was held on 27 July 2013 and 47 members of

the public participated;

- 5 comments were received from the Public Affairs Forum hosted by Home

Affairs Bureau; and

- 15 written submissions were received during the public engagement period.


1.4 Stage II Public Engagement Activities

The two-month Stage II Public Engagement exercise took place between 5 June 2014

and 5 August 2014. To facilitate the public engagement process, information covering

the Study’s background and the four shortlisted submissions were disseminated to the

public for general reference. The four shortlisted entries were labeled as Entry A-D

and the four teams were requested to submit two sets of reduced images of all nine

panels (i.e. three in Stage 1 and six more in Stage 2) in A3 size mounted in foam

board (about 5mm in thick) for outreach opinion surveys and a video clip1 (not more

than 3 minutes) with subtitles (English and Chinese) to summarize the idea and design

concepts for public inspection. The information and feedback materials should not

reveal the identity of the submitting teams. The panels submitted by the teams were

mounted in the display panels for demonstration in the mobile exhibitions and the

video clips were shown in random order in the mobile exhibitions and schools.

For the schools, HKUSSRC sent out invitation letters, which mentioned that the

School Engagement Activity was supported by the Education Bureau, to all secondary

schools in Hong Kong in March 2014 and 22 secondary schools agreed in principle to

participate in the activities. Finally, a total of 16 secondary schools were visited.

Before each school visit, HKUSSRC provided a parental/guardian passive consent

form to each student to ensure that parents did not object to their participation in the

activities. During the school visit, HKUSSRC provided A4 colour double-sided copies

of all panels provided by the four entries to each student for their reference. There was

a 15-minute briefing session to students in each school, including a 2-minute

introduction of the public engagement process and display of the 3-minute video clip

for each entry. Subsequently, all students were given 10 minutes to complete the

paper feedback questionnaire or invited to complete the online feedback questionnaire

at home.

For the roving exhibitions, all four sets of panels provided were displayed either in A3

size or A1 size in the venues, depending on space constraints. For the indoor venues,

the 3-minute video clip of each entry was shown in turn on a 42-inch television

display. Passer-byes were invited to look at the panels and given a pamphlet about the

public engagement. After observing all the panels, they were invited to complete a

self-administered questionnaire and to place the completed feedback questionnaire

1 Entry A has only a Cantonese sound track, while Entries B, C and D have

Cantonese and English sound tracks.


into the collection box placed on site.

A bilingual feedback questionnaire was designed to facilitate view collection at roving

exhibitions and was made available at the Competition website

“http://www.kaitakfantasy.hk” as an online questionnaire to facilitate widespread use.

In order to solicit views and comments of different sectors of the community,

invitations were sent out to secondary schools via the Education Bureau, advisory

bodies, district councils and professional institutes. A series of public engagement

activities were conducted.

(a) Briefing session with advisory bodies such as the EDC and Harbourfront

Commission Task Force on Kai Tak Harbourfront Development and Task

Force on Water-land Interface;

(b) Briefing sessions with stakeholders such as visitors from Planning Department

and young members of The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers;

(c) Briefing sessions with senior secondary students (i.e. F.4 to F.6) at;

i. Lingnan Secondary School in Hong Kong East District on 17 June 14

ii. HKICC Lee Shau Kee School of Creativity in Kowloon City District

on 19 June 14

iii. Sacred Heart Canossian College in Southern District on 23 June 14

iv. Munsang College in Kowloon City District on 24 June14

v. St Paul’s College in Central and Western District on 25 June 14 and 27

June 14

vi. Yuen Long Merchants Association Secondary School in Yuen Long

District on 26 June 14

vii. Sheng Kung Hui Bishop Mok Sau Tseng Secondary School in Tai Po

District on 30 June 14

viii. Queen’s College Old Boys’ Association Secondary School in Kwai

Chung and Tsing Yi District on 2 July 14

ix. Queen’s College in Wan Chai District on 2 July 14

x. Sheng Kung Hui Holy Trinity Church Secondary School in Kowloon

City District on 3 July 14

xi. King’s College in Central and Western District on 3 July 14

xii. The Bishop Hall Jubilee School in Kowloon City District on 7 July 14

xiii. Yuen Long Public Middle School Alumni Association Tang Siu Tong

Secondary School in Yuen Long District on 7 July 14

xiv. True Light Girls’ College in Yau Tsim Mong District o 8 July 14

xv. S.K.H. Leung Kwai Yee Secondary School in Kwun Tong District on 8


July 14

xvi. Ying Wa College in Sham Shui Po District on 9 July 14

(d) In addition to the study website, a Facebook page was launched to facilitate

easy access to relevant publicity and consultation materials, details of the

public engagement activities

(e) On-line questionnaire was available at study website;

(f) Roving exhibitions of the four shortlisted submissions were held at

i. Energizing Kowloon East Office in Kwun Tong between 5 June and 5

August 2014;

ii. City Gallery in Central between 5 June and 5 August 2014;

iii. Megabox in Kowloon Bay between 16 and 19 June 2014

iv. Hung Hom East Rail Station between 20 and 23 June 2014;

v. Star Ferry Pier in Tsim Sha Tsui between 4 and 7 July 2014;

vi. Hong Kong International Airport at Chek Lap Kok between 9 to 14

July 2014;

vii. Cheung Sha Wan Government Offices in Cheung Sha Wan between 18

to 31 July 2014;

viii. Victoria Park in Causeway Bay between 17 and 20 July 2014; and

ix. PMQ Exhibition in Sheung Wan between 1 and 5 August 2014.

(g) Comments were received from the Public Affairs Forum hosted by Home

Affairs Bureau of the interested stakeholders; and

(h) Written submissions were received either by email or letter.

1.5 Channels of Feedback Received in Stage II

Feedback and comments received through the above engagement activities were

classified into the following six channels:

Adolescent questionnaires (AO): 1625 questionnaires

Adult questionnaires (AD): 2469 questionnaires

Written Submissions (WS): 16 submissions

Events (EV): 3 event summaries

Printed Media and Web News (MW): 20 printed media news reports; 29 web

news reports

Online Forum and Social Media (OS): 1 topic from Hong Kong Golden

Discussion Forum; 1 topic from the “Hong Kong Urban Planning News” (香港

規劃情報) Facebook Page


1.6 Analysis of Feedback Received in Stage II

The feedback provided using the feedback questionnaire (other than open-ended

comments) was processed and analysed using quantitative methods and the results can

be found in Chapter 2 with the feedback form in Annex A. All other feedback was

analysed using qualitative methods and the analysis can be found in Chapter 3 with

the framework in Annex B.

All the collected data in the feedback forms (i.e. closed-ended questions) have been

tabulated and analysed using SPSS 20.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)

software to provide percentages for the different response options, and where

appropriate, cumulative percentages. The main questions have been cross-tabulated

with the demographic variables.

All the feedback other than the closed-ended questions in the feedback forms has been

analysed using qualitative analysis using the NVivo software, based on a framework

in Annex B that is developed by the HKUSSRC in consultation with the EKEO and

approved by Organising Committee to reflect the public views on the four shortlisted

entries, and then extended to cover all the other issues raised in the qualitative

materials collected during the PE process.

Methodology for collecting views

Surveys of randomly selected people are often considered particularly valuable as

they allow collection of representative views and in that sense are often seen as the

best evaluation of public opinion. However, surveys implicitly assume that

respondents already understand the issues, which can be unlikely if the issues are

complex (such as in this case) or do not receive wide media coverage (as is possible

for KTF). It is important also to note that telephone surveys do not allow use of visual

aids (which is important when considering designs with a visual component, as is the

case here), online surveys have generally very low response rates and face-to-face

surveys are relatively expensive. As a consequence, randomised surveys were not

used in this project because of the need for visual aid support (eliminating telephone

surveys) and cost of face-to-face surveys (eliminating face-to-face surveys) and

because on-line surveys would add little in representativeness to the use of feedback

forms.

Public feedback forms are valuable for collecting the views of stakeholders who are

already highly engaged. These forms were the major mechanism for collection in this


project. The draft form was reviewed tested to ensure that the questions were clear,

related directly to the issues in question and only related to issues on which the target

respondents could reasonably be expected to have an informed opinion. The forms

were distributed on paper (for convenience) at exhibition venues, but we encouraged

use of the (environmentally friendly) online form, which was available throughout the

consultation period at the KTF website. The closed-ended questions on the form allow

standardized comparison of views across many respondents, while the open-ended

questions allow people to express the full range of their views in an inclusive manner.

Having an open feedback process may encourage people to submit feedback multiple

times in the hope of having increased influence. This makes it important to retain

public trust by openly excluding responses that are obviously invalid, such as repeated

identical submissions from the same IP address (i.e. the same computer or group of

computers).

1.7 Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this Report is to summarize all the public comments received in the

Stage II Public Engagement.


Chapter Two Quantitative Analysis of the Feedback Questionnaire

in Stage II

2.1 Design of Feedback Questionnaire

A bilingual feedback questionnaire was designed by the HKSSRC and consulted with

the EKEO and approved by Organising Committee for wide distribution in the

community. It was designed to be simple enough to be understood by anyone with

secondary education. In the roving exhibition venues, the questionnaire was used in

self-administered questionnaire, and was provided for the public to submit. The

questionnaire was also made available as an online questionnaire to facilitate

widespread use.

The feedback questionnaire mainly consists of two sections. One section asked the

public’s degree of support of each entry in the following four aspects:

(a) Identity (i.e. gives KTF a unique identity and a sense of place);

(b) Creativity (i.e. adopts innovative and creative planning and design ideas);

(c) Neighbourhood synergy (i.e. achieves harmony with the uses in the

neighbourhood and creates synergy effect for transformation of Kowloon East);

and

(d) Sustainability (i.e. environmentally friendly and adopts green and sustainable

development concepts).

The next section asked the public about their favourite idea among the three key ideas

of each entry and the key ideas were given by the entries as following:

(a) Entry A:

A1 Seamless modern and tradition integration

A2 Easy configuration with modular systems

A3 Cost-effective and practical construction

(b) Entry B:

B1 Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment

B2 Reconnect to the Mother Nature

B3 Formula E Evolves the Future

(c) Entry C:

C1 Diverse enterprise

C2 Natural ecology


C3 Healthy city

(d) Entry D:

D1 A Constantly evolving Flexible Space

D2 Meaningfully Engage local authentic Culture

D3 Experience and reconnect with nature

The public were also asked to share why they chose their favourite key ideas and any

other views regarding the ideas.

For the technical aspects of each entry i.e. planning, urban design, architecture,

engineering, landscape architecture and surveying, etc. the public were asked to

provide their views that they thought the Jury Panel should consider.

For the other feedback, the public were asked to provide any suggestions or views

regarding any other aspect of the Competition and the feedback questionnaire.

Lastly, respondents were asked to provide information including their gender, age,

education and living district in Hong Kong for demographic analysis.

2.2 Quantity of Feedback Questionnaires

A total of 4,094 feedback questionnaires that contained responses were received as of 5

August 2014 and subsequently processed including 3,306 paper feedback

questionnaires (1,874 self-administered questionnaires received in roving exhibitions

and 1,432 self-administered feedback questionnaires received in secondary schools)

and 788 on-line feedback questionnaires, excluding one duplicate online questionnaire

(i.e. questionnaires with identical data from identical IP addresses and received within

a one-minute period).


2.3 Statistical Analysis

It is important to note that the feedback questionnaires are not a random sample of any

population, so statistical tests, which assume random samples, are not appropriate.

In the following section, the results from the feedback questionnaires are presented in

two groups based on the reported age of respondents, i.e. adult respondents: those

aged 18 or above and adolescent respondents: those aged below 18, as their views on

the entries are quite different. There is no judgement here that adolescent opinions are

of less value than adults; while their views might be less mature, it can be argued that

they have a stronger stake in the future of Hong Kong.

Support of entries is reported in the order based on the percentage who rated them as

Excellent, which is often, but not always the same order if based on the percentage

who rated them either as Excellent or Good. If the order is different, the different

order is noted in the text.

Demographic breakdowns are provided for the Overall assessment if there is any

difference in the ordering of the entries between the different demographic groups.

Some percentages in the figures may not add up to the total or 100% because of

rounding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence


2.4 Results of Feedback Questionnaire

2.4.1 Assessment of the Entries

2.4.1.1 Overall

Figure 2.1a Overall degree of support for each entry among adults

Figure 2.1b Overall degree of support for each entry among adolescents

As can be seen from Figures 2.1a and 2.1b, adults and adolescents assessed the four

entries differently overall. For adults, Entry C had the most support (20.5% E, 59.3%

G/E), followed by Entry A (18.7% E, 51.9% G/E), Entry B (10.0% E, 48.4% G/E) and

Entry D (8.8% E, 36.9% G/E). For adolescents, Entry D has the most support (19.5%

rated Excellent, 64.5% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (16.6% E,

61.9% G/E), Entry C (14.2% E, 56.0% G/E) and Entry B (11.6% E, 53.3% G/E).

8.8%

20.5%

10.0%

18.7%

28.2%

38.8%

38.4%

33.2%

45.3%

32.2%

38.8%

32.1%

12.5%

6.1%

9.3%

11.0%

5.3%

2.5%

3.5%

5.0%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A

Excellent (E) Good (G) Fair (F) Weak (W) Very weak (VW)

Base

(2,237)

(2,225)

(2,257)

(2,212)

19.5%

14.2%

11.6%

16.6%

45.0%

41.8%

41.7%

45.3%

29.5%

35.9%

39.1%

30.4%

4.8%

7.3%

6.5%

6.3%

1.2%

0.8%

1.1%

1.4%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(1,569)

(1,535)

(1,536)

(1,532)



Figure 2.1c Overall degree of support for each entry among adults aged 18-49

Figure 2.1d Overall degree of support for each entry among adults aged 50 or

above

As can be seen from Figures 2.1c and 2.1d, younger and older adults assessed the four

entries slightly differently overall. For younger adults, Entry C has the most support

(20.3% rated Excellent, 59.1% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (18.3%

E, 52.5% G/E), Entry B (9.5% E, 48.5% G/E) and Entry D (7.3% E, 35.1% G/E). For

older adults, Entry C had the most support (18.9% E, 62.8% G/E), followed by Entry

A (15.6% E, 44.7% G/E), Entry D (13.5% E, 46.1% G/E) and Entry B (10.8% E,

47.9% G/E), (C/B/D/A based on G/E).

7.3%

20.3%

9.5%

18.3%

27.8%

38.8%

39.0%

34.2%

46.4%

32.7%

38.6%

31.7%

13.1%

6.1%

9.5%

11.0%

5.5%

2.2%

3.4%

4.8%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(1,772)

(1,770)

(1,782)

(1,751)

13.5%

18.9%

10.8%

15.6%

32.6%

43.9%

37.1%

29.1%

39.2%

28.4%

42.1%

36.2%

10.1%

5.4%

6.1%

12.4%

4.5%

3.4%

4.0%

6.7%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(888)

(885)

(902)

(880)


Figure 2.1e Overall degree of support for each entry among adults with Secondary

education or below

Figure 2.1f Overall degree of support for each entry among adults with Tertiary

education or above

As can be seen from Figures 2.1e and 2.1f, adults with lower and higher levels of

education assessed the four entries slightly differently overall. For adults with

secondary education or below, Entry C has the most support (17.8% rated Excellent,

59.9% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (12.6% E, 49.3% G/E), Entry D

(11.2% E, 47.0% G/E) and Entry B (11.0% E, 47.6% G/E) (C/A/B/D based on G/E).

For adults with tertiary education or above, Entry C had the most support (20.6% E,

58.7% G/E), followed by Entry A (18.7% E, 51.7% G/E), Entry B (9.4% E, 48.5%

G/E) and Entry D (7.5% E, 34.4% G/E).

11.2%

17.8%

11.0%

12.6%

35.8%

42.1%

36.6%

36.7%

40.1%

31.5%

40.1%

36.4%

8.9%

5.7%

8.4%

10.6%

4.0%

2.9%

4.0%

3.8%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(341)

(347)

(349)

(349)

7.5%

20.6%

9.4%

18.7%

26.9%

38.1%

39.1%

33.0%

46.5%

32.7%

38.5%

31.5%

13.4%

6.1%

9.5%

11.3%

5.7%

2.4%

3.5%

5.5%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(1671)

(1659)

(1687)

(1649)


Figure 2.1g Overall degree of support for each entry among Male adolescents

Figure 2.1h Overall degree of support for each entry among Female adolescents

As can be seen from Figures 2.1g and 2.1h, male and female adolescents assessed the

four entries slightly differently overall. For male adolescents, Entry D has the most

support (19.1% rated Excellent, 61.5% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A

(15.2% E, 57.8% G/E), Entry C (13.5% E, 52.4% G/E) and Entry B (12.1% E, 55.5%

G/E) (D/A/B/C based on G/E). For female adolescents, Entry D had the most support

(20.3% E, 67.7% G/E), followed by Entry A (19.0% E, 68.1% G/E), Entry C (15.0%

E, 60.5% G/E) and Entry B (10.8% E, 49.7% G/E) (A/D/C/B based on G/E).

19.1%

13.5%

12.1%

15.2%

42.4%

38.9%

43.4%

42.6%

30.8%

36.9%

36.1%

32.4%

6.1%

9.4%

6.9%

7.8%

1.6%

1.3%

1.5%

2.1%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(871)

(858)

(853)

(854)

20.3%

15.0%

10.8%

19.0%

47.4%

45.5%

38.9%

49.1%

28.5%

34.5%

43.7%

27.8%

3.2%

4.7%

6.0%

3.9%

0.6%

0.3%

0.6%

0.3%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(648)

(630)

(635)

(629)


2.4.1.2 Identity

Figure 2.2a Degree of support for each entry on identity among adults

Figure 2.2b Degree of support for each entry on identity among adolescents


entries differently on identity. For adults, Entry A had the most support (27.5% E,

62.1% G/E), followed by Entry C (24.2% E, 64.9% G/E), Entry B (17.1% E, 55.9%

G/E) and Entry D (10.3% E, 40.9% G/E) (order is C/A/B/D based on G/E). For

adolescents, Entry A has the most support (26.8% rated Excellent, 71.8% rated Good

or Excellent), followed by Entry D (25.2% E, 66.9% G/E), Entry B (18.6% E, 58.6%

G/E) and Entry C (17.3% E, 58.1% G/E).

10.3%

24.2%

17.1%

27.5%

30.6%

40.7%

38.9%

34.6%

41.1%

26.8%

32.7%

25.0%

12.4%

5.9%

8.4%

7.9%

5.6%

2.5%

2.9%

5.0%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(2,308)

(2,285)

(2,320)

(2,271)

25.2%

17.3%

18.6%

26.8%

41.7%

40.8%

39.9%

45.0%

27.7%

34.8%

34.2%

22.4%

4.3%

6.0%

6.1%

4.4%

1.2%

1.2%

1.1%

1.3%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(1,580)

(1,566)

(1,566)

(1,566)



2.4.1.3 Creativity

Figure 2.3a Degree of support for each entry on creativity among adults

Figure 2.3b Degree of support for each entry on creativity among adolescents


entries differently on creativity. For adults, Entry A had the most support (34.6% E,

66.0% G/E), followed by Entry C (24.8% E, 61.8% G/E), Entry B (14.4% E, 50.8%

G/E) and Entry D (10.1% E, 37.3% G/E). For adolescents, Entry A has the most

support (41.6% rated Excellent, 78.0% rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry D

(24.4% E, 64.8% G/E), Entry B (18.2% E, 55.6% G/E) and Entry C (17.6% E, 54.6%

G/E).

10.1%

24.8%

14.4%

34.6%

27.2%

37.0%

36.4%

31.4%

40.7%

29.1%

35.6%

21.1%

16.0%

6.7%

9.8%

8.2%

6.0%

2.4%

3.8%

4.7%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(2,304)

(2,278)

(2,308)

(2,264)

24.4%

17.6%

18.2%

41.6%

40.4%

36.9%

37.4%

36.3%

27.5%

35.3%

35.3%

17.6%

6.3%

8.3%

7.7%

3.1%

1.4%

1.8%

1.5%

1.3%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(1,588)

(1,568)

(1,560)

(1,566)



2.4.1.4 Neighbourhood synergy

Figure 2.4a Degree of support for each entry on neighbourhood synergy among adults

Figure 2.4b Degree of support for each entry on neighbourhood synergy among

adolescents


entries differently on neighbourhood synergy. For adults, Entry A had the most

support (19.9% E, 48.0% G/E), followed by Entry C (17.0% E, 53.5% G/E), Entry D

(10.7% E, 41.7% G/E) and Entry B (9.9% E, 42.9% G/E) (order is C/A/B/D based on

G/E).For adolescents, Entry D has the most support (17.9% rated Excellent, 57.8%

rated Good or Excellent), followed by Entry A (16.6% E, 52.4% G/E), Entry C

(13.2% E, 53.1% G/E) and Entry B (11.4% E, 47.9% G/E) (order is D/C/A/B based

on G/E).

10.7%

17.0%

9.9%

19.9%

31.0%

36.5%

33.0%

28.2%

40.8%

34.6%

40.2%

32.7%

12.3%

8.9%

11.9%

12.7%

5.2%

3.0%

5.0%

6.5%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(2,269)

(2,252)

(2,288)

(2,252)

17.9%

13.2%

11.4%

16.6%

39.9%

39.9%

36.5%

35.8%

33.4%

35.6%

39.5%

35.6%

7.3%

9.7%

10.6%

9.3%

1.5%

1.6%

2.0%

2.7%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(1,543)

(1,528)

(1,521)

(1,532)



2.4.1.5 Sustainability

Figure 2.5a Degree of support for each entry on sustainability among adults

Figure 2.5b Degree of support for each entry on sustainability among adolescents


entries differently on sustainability. For adults, Entry C had the most support (22.4%

E, 62.4% G/E), followed by Entry A (15.4% E, 41.9% G/E), Entry B (11.5% E, 49.6%

G/E) and Entry D (10.8% E, 43.8% G/E) (order is C/B/D/A based on G/E). For

adolescents, Entry C has the most support (24.0% rated Excellent, 66.2% rated Good

or Excellent), followed by Entry D (21.1% E, 61.5% G/E), Entry B (15.7% E, 59.4%

G/E) and Entry A (13.7% E, 45.0% G/E).

10.8%

22.4%

11.5%

15.4%

33.0%

39.9%

38.0%

26.5%

40.7%

27.0%

36.0%

34.0%

10.3%

7.3%

10.1%

14.7%

5.2%

3.3%

4.3%

9.4%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(2,259)

(2,242)

(2,273)

(2,231)

21.1%

24.0%

15.7%

13.7%

40.4%

42.2%

43.7%

31.3%

31.0%

26.3%

32.0%

37.1%

5.8%

6.5%

6.6%

13.6%

1.7%

1.0%

2.1%

4.3%

Entry D

Entry C

Entry B

Entry A


Base

(1,549)

(1,536)

(1,527)

(1,541)



2.4.2 Preference for the Key Ideas of the Entries

2.4.2.1 Entry A

Figure 2.6a The favourite idea of Entry A among adults

(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 2,237)

Figure 2.6b The favourite idea of Entry A among adolescents

(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Don’t know” and missing data = 1,431)

For Entry A, both adults and adolescents preferred “Easy configuration with modular

systems” (51.9% for both groups).

17.3%

30.8%

51.9%

Coast-effective and partical construction

Seamless modern and tradition integration

Easy configuration with modular systems

21.8%

26.3%

51.9%

Coast-effective and partical construction

Seamless modern and tradition integration

Easy configuration with modular systems




2.4.2.2 Entry B

Figure 2.7a The favourite idea of Entry B among adults


Figure 2.7b The favourite idea of Entry B among adolescents


For Entry B, adults preferred “Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment” (38.9%),

while adolescents preferred “Reconnect to Mother Nature” (44.7%).

25.3%

35.8%

38.9%

Formula E Evolves the Future

Reconnect to the Mother Nature

Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment

26.6%

28.8%

44.7%

Formula E Evolves the Future

Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment

Reconnect to the Mother Nature




2.4.2.3 Entry C

Figure 2.8a The favourite idea of Entry C among adults


Figure 2.8b The favourite idea of Entry C among adolescents


For Entry C, almost equal proportions of both adults and adolescents chose “Healthy

city” (42.8% for adults, 40.4% for adolescents), and “Natural ecology” (44.1% for

adults and 39.1% for adolescents ).

13.2%

42.8%

44.1%

Diverse enterprise

Healthy city

Natural ecology

20.5%

39.1%

40.4%

Diverse enterprise

Natural ecology

Healthy city




2.4.2.4 Entry D

Figure 2.9a The favourite idea of Entry D among adults


Figure 2.9b The favourite idea of Entry D among adolescents


For Entry D, both adults and adolescents preferred “Meaningfully engage with local

authentic culture” (42.2% for adults, 46.6%for adolescents).

25.8%

32.1%

42.2%

Experience and reconnect with nature

A Constantly evolving Flexible Space

Meaningfully Engage local authentic Culture

19.8%

33.6%

46.6%

Experience and reconnect with nature

A Constantly evolving Flexible Space

Meaningfully Engage local authentic Culture




2.4.3 Demographic Information

2.4.3.1 Gender

Figure 2.10a Gender distribution among adults

(Base: All adult respondents excluding missing data = 2,234)

Figure 2.10b Gender distribution among adolescents

(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding missing data = 1,573)

There were more male than female respondents amongst both adults and adolescents.

Male 56.2% Female

43.8%

Male 58.3%

Female 41.7%




2.4.3.2 Age

Figure 2.11 Age distribution among adults


Most of the adult respondents were aged less than 50 years.

2.4.3.3 Education Level

Figure 2.12 Education level among adults


The majority of adult respondents had tertiary education.

18-49 84.5%

50 or above 15.5%

Primary or below 0.7%

Secondary 17.2%

Tertiary or above 82.1%


2.4.3.4 Living District in Hong Kong

Figure 2.13a The living district among Hong Kong resident adults

(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Living outside Hong Kong” and missing data

= 2,010)

Respondents from Kwun Tong District were 9.7% of the adult Hong Kong residents

who responded.

1.5%

3.0%

3.1%

3.5%

3.9%

4.0%

4.1%

4.2%

4.3%

4.4%

4.7%

4.9%

7.1%

8.0%

8.4%

9.6%

9.7%

11.6%

Islands

Tai Po

North New Territories

Wan Chai

Tsuen Wan

Southern Hong Kong Island

Tuen Mun

Yau Tsim Mong

Yuen Long

Wong Tai Sin

Sham Shui Po

Kwai Tsing

Sai Kung

Kowloon City

Sha Tin

Central and Western Hong Kong Island

Kwun Tong

Eastern Hong Kong Island



Figure 2.13b The living district among Hong Kong resident adolescents

(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Living outside Hong Kong” and

missing data = 1,459)

Respondents from Kwun Tong District were 18.6% of the adolescent Hong Kong

residents who responded.

1.0%

1.4%

1.4%

2.0%

2.6%

2.7%

3.8%

4.1%

4.3%

5.6%

5.6%

6.3%

7.1%

8.1%

8.2%

8.2%

8.9%

18.6%

Tuen Mun

North New Territories

Islands

Wan Chai

Tsuen Wan

Tai Po

Sha Tin

Wong Tai Sin

Sai Kung

Yau Tsim Mong

Kwai Tsing

Southern Hong Kong Island

Kowloon City

Sham Shui Po

Yuen Long

Eastern Hong Kong Island

Central and Western Hong Kong Island

Kwun Tong




2.4.3.5 Living outside Hong Kong

Figure 2.14a Living location among non-Hong Kong resident adults

(Base: All adult respondents excluding “Living in Hong Kong” and missing data =

242)

Figure 2.14b Living location among non-Hong Kong resident adolescents

(Base: All adolescent respondents excluding “Living in Hong Kong” and missing

data = 94)

Nearly half (47.9%) of the adult respondents from outside Hong Kong were living in

the Mainland, while around one fifth (19.1%) of adolescent respondents from outside

Hong Kong were living in the Mainland.

Living elsewhere 52.1%

Mainland China 47.9%

Mainland China 19.1%

Living elsewhere 80.9%





2.4.3.6 Whether All Shortlisted Entries were Reviewed

Figure 2.15a Review of all shortlisted entries among adults

(Base: All adult respondents = 2,469)

Figure 2.15b Review of all shortlisted entries among adolescents

(Base: All adolescent respondents = 1,625)

The majority (86%) of adult respondents had either visited the website or an

exhibition to review all the shortlisted entries. Only 26.3% of the adolescent

respondents had done this, but most adolescents had the benefit of a presentation of

the panels and all the videos in their classroom.

14.0%

48.0%

38.1%

Neither website nor exhibitions

Either website or exhibitions

Both website and exhibitions

73.7%

18.7%

7.6%

Neither website nor exhibitions

Either website or exhibitions

Both website and exhibitions





Chapter Three Results of the Qualitative Analysis

3.1 Introduction

The qualitative analysis used the nVivo software and is based on a framework in

Annex B that was developed by the HKUSSRC to reflect all the issues covered in the

consultation document and then extended to cover all the other issues raised in the

qualitative materials collected during the consultation.

A table of counts for comments received on each issue is provided for each section in

this chapter, broken down by the six channels noted above. Comments submitted by

different people are counted each time, even if the comments were identical,

regardless of the channel of submission, on the grounds that this reflects the number

of people or organizations who wish to make that specific comment. As individual

identities were not cross-referenced across channels, comments submitted through

multiple channels are counted separately through each channel, unless they could be

matched because of identical content, in which case they were only included once

under a single channel. All counts are comment-based, where a comment is defined as

a specific idea that could be coded as a distinct issue.

Discussion is provided for any issue with at least 30 comments provided for topics not

related to a specific entry or at least 20 comments for a topic related to a specific entry,

including a quote from a typical comment submitted and also, where appropriate, the

numbers of comments that agree and disagree are highlighted, even if the number of

comments is less than the cutoff. The discussion starts by listing issues with counts

above the cutoff at the highest level of analysis then breaks down the analysis at the

next level of analysis until there are no issues with counts above the cutoff. The

quotes are provided at the lowest level of analysis with a count above the cutoff to

ensure that the quotes are as specific as possible to the issue.


3.2 Feedback Channels

The 7,158 comments received through the above engagement activities were

classified into the following six channels:

Adolescent questionnaires (AO): 2,936 comments

Adult questionnaires (AD): 3,967 comments

Written Submissions (WS): 124 comments

Events (EV): 53 comments

Printed Media and Web News (MW): 14 comments

Online Forum and Social Media (OS): 64 comments

3.3 Feedback on ‘What the Jury Should Consider’

Table 3.1 shows the breakdown of the 2,983 comments about ‘What the jury should

Consider’ by channel.

Table 3.1 Feedback on ‘What the Jury Should Consider’ by Channel

Node

Divided by Channels

Total* AO AD WS EV MW OS

A.2. Feedback on What the Jury Should Consider (if not commenting

on specific entries) 1368 1539 42 21 7 6 2983

A.2.1. Criteria in Assessment Guideline 702 659 1 5 3 1 1371

A.2.1.1. A) Branding and Image 19 31 0 1 1 0 52

A.2.1.1.1. The design should be iconic or includes iconic

structure 5 15 0 1 1 0 22

A.2.1.1.2. The design should promote the brand and image of

Hong Kong 5 10 0 0 0 0 15

A.2.1.1.3. The design should be able to draw people's

attention 9 6 0 0 0 0 15

A.2.1.2. B) Innovation and Creativity 69 52 0 0 0 0 121

A.2.1.2.1 The design should be innovative and creative 69 52 0 0 0 0 121

A.2.1.3. C) Originality and Identity in place making 20 32 0 0 0 0 52

A.2.1.3.1. The design should make Kai Tak a place with

originality and identity 20 32 0 0 0 0 52

A.2.1.4. D) Harmonize and Synergize with the Neighbourhood 35 56 0 2 1 1 95

A.2.1.4.1. The design should integrate into and connect to the

neighbourhood to achieve harmonization 29 37 0 1 0 0 67

A.2.1.4.2. The design should create synergy effect in the area

development 6 19 0 1 1 1 28

A.2.1.5. E) Sustainability and Green Design (including Safety

and Health Life Style) 306 336 1 1 1 0 645

A.2.1.5.1. The design should be green and sustainable 287 272 0 1 0 0 560

A.2.1.5.2. The design should address the water quality

problem 7 26 1 0 1 0 35


Node

Divided by Channels


A.2.1.5.3. The design should cope with other safety issues 6 21 0 0 0 0 27

A.2.1.5.3.1 The design should consider the effect of

weather on green and safety design 4 17 0 0 0 0 21

A.2.1.5.3.2 The design should cope with other safety

issues 2 4 0 0 0 0 6

A.2.1.5.4. The design should promote healthy life style 5 14 0 0 0 0 19

A.2.1.5.5. The design should propose an adequate sewage

and waste management design 1 3 0 0 0 0 4

A.2.1.6. F) Feasibility in implementation 162 79 0 1 0 0 242

A.2.1.6.1 The design should be feasible and implementable 130 53 0 1 0 0 184

A.2.1.6.2. The design should be practical 31 19 0 0 0 0 50

A.2.1.6.3. The design should consider the maintenance issues 1 7 0 0 0 0 8

A.2.1.7. G) Cost Effectiveness 91 73 0 0 0 0 164

A.2.1.7.1. The Jury should consider the cost-effectiveness of

the design (e.g. construction and maintenance costs) 91 73 0 0 0 0 164

A.2.2. Technical Aspects and Design Considerations 585 742 26 10 3 4 1370

A.2.2.01. Urban Planning and Design 292 329 2 2 0 0 625

A.2.2.1.01. The Jury should consider urban planning, design

and use of space 193 100 0 0 0 0 293

A.2.2.1.02. The design should have less commercial

development 14 59 1 0 0 0 74

A.2.2.1.03. The design should include space for sports,

leisure and relaxation 13 52 0 2 0 0 67

A.2.2.1.04. The design should include more public space 8 43 1 0 0 0 52

A.2.2.1.05. The design should consider diversity 29 10 0 0 0 0 39

A.2.2.1.06. The design should include places for arts

development 10 13 0 0 0 0 23

A.2.2.1.07. The design should consider the capacities to

handle a large amount of visitors 9 8 0 0 0 0 17

A.2.2.1.08. The design should include places for commercial


A.2.2.1.09. The design should consider density of buildings 4 6 0 0 0 0 10

A.2.2.1.10. The design should include places for residential


A.2.2.1.11. The design should include places for communal

facilities and activities 0 4 0 0 0 0 4

A.2.2.1.12. The design should have less green zone 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.2.2.1.13. The design should include adequate sanitary

facilities 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.2.2.1.14. The design should include adequate medical

facilities 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.1.15. The design should focus on a specific theme 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.1.16. The design should include enough parking area 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.1.17. The design should consider adequate signage

system 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.1.18. Other comments concerning urban planning and

design 6 13 0 0 0 0 19

A.2.2.04. Connectivity 34 84 2 1 0 3 124

A.2.2.4.1. The design should consider the connectivity,

traffic and accessibility in general 24 36 1 1 0 0 62

A.2.2.4.2. The design should include cycle track 4 14 0 0 0 2 20


Node

Divided by Channels


A.2.2.4.2. The design should consider pedestrian access 2 8 0 0 0 0 10

A.2.2.4.3. Considerations Towards EFLS (monorail) 2 16 1 0 0 0 19

A.2.2.4.3.1. The design should include monorail 2 7 0 0 0 0 9

A.2.2.4.3.2. The design should not rely on light rail for

transport 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.2.2.4.3.3. The design should not include light rail 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

A.2.2.4.3.4. Other comments towards light rail 0 6 0 0 0 0 6

A.2.2.4.4. The design should consider land transport

connection 2 3 0 0 0 0 5

A.2.2.4.5. The design should consider water transport

connection 0 4 0 0 0 1 5

A.2.2.4.6. The design should consider connection to current

mass transit systems 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

A.2.2.02. Architecture 70 46 0 0 0 0 116

A.2.2.2.1. The Jury should consider the architecture aspect of

the design in general 30 15 0 0 0 0 45

A.2.2.2.2. The forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective

and character of the architectural design should be

considered 21 15 0 0 0 0 36

A.2.2.2.3. The function and use of space of the architectural

design should be considered 7 8 0 0 0 0 15

A.2.2.2.4. The feasibility of the architectural design should

be considered 9 2 0 0 0 0 11

A.2.2.2.5. The building materials used in the architectural

design should be considered 3 5 0 0 0 0 8

A.2.2.2.6. The effect of weather to the architecture should be

considered 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.03. Place-making Strategies 41 58 0 1 1 0 101

A.2.2.3.1. The design should propose an adequate theme,

events and facilities to attract visitors 31 38 0 1 1 0 71

A.2.2.3.2. The design should have a right combination of

commercial activities for drawing visitors 7 12 0 0 0 0 19

A.2.2.3.3. Other comments on place-making strategies 3 8 0 0 0 0 11

A.2.2.05. Showcase of Local Culture and Heritage 27 42 0 0 1 0 70

A.2.2.5.1. Display of the culture and heritage of the city 27 32 0 0 1 0 60

A.2.2.5.2. Display of old Kai Tak airport heritage 0 10 0 0 0 0 10

A.2.2.06. Landscape Architecture 24 45 0 0 1 0 70

A.2.2.6.1. The Jury should consider the landscape

architecture of the design in general 24 38 0 0 0 0 62

A.2.2.6.2. Right types of landscaping plants should be used 0 4 0 0 1 0 5

A.2.2.6.3. The effect of weather on landscape architecture

should be considered 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.6.4. The landscape design should include a larger area

of plantation zone 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.6.5. The landscape design should include a right theme 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.07. Engineering 42 25 0 0 0 0 67

A.2.2.7.1. The Jury should consider engineering issues of the

design in general 35 13 0 0 0 0 48

A.2.2.7.2. The pollution made to the surrounding

environment during the construction should be considered 5 3 0 0 0 0 8

A.2.2.7.3. The effect of weather on engineering should be 0 3 0 0 0 0 3


Node

Divided by Channels


considered

A.2.2.7.4. The construction should not affect the existing

underground utilities (e.g. dung channel) 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.7.5. Other engineering issues 2 5 0 0 0 0 7

A.2.2.08. Providing Suitable Water-based Activities in the

Water Body 5 42 11 3 0 1 62

A.2.2.8.1. Facilities for water sports (e.g. dragon boat,

rowing, canoeing etc.) should be provided in the water body 1 14 7 3 0 0 25

A.2.2.8.2. Facilities and moorings for recreational boating

should be provided in the water body 0 17 4 0 0 0 21

A.2.2.8.3. The design should propose suitable water-based

activities in general 2 7 0 0 0 0 9

A.2.2.8.4. Other comments on providing suitable water-based

activities 2 2 0 0 0 1 5

A.2.2.8.5. The water body should not be used for moorings of

large boats 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.2.2.09. Flexible Design 13 13 0 1 0 0 27

A.2.2.9.1. The design should be flexible for holding urban

city events or future use 13 13 0 1 0 0 27

A.2.2.10. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and Reclamation

issues 2 14 5 1 0 0 22

A.2.2.10.1. No reclamation in the KTF site OR the PHO

should be observed 1 13 5 1 0 0 20

A.2.2.10.2. More reclamation can be considered 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.10.3. The scale of reclamation should be concerned 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.2.11. Construction Phasing Plan 18 10 0 0 0 0 28

A.2.2.11.1. The timeframe of construction should be

considered 18 7 0 0 0 0 25

A.2.2.11.1. Proper phasing of construction should be

considered 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

A.2.2.12. Surveying 16 5 0 0 0 0 21

A.2.2.12.1. The Jury should consider survey aspect in general 13 3 0 0 0 0 16

A.2.2.12.2. The floor area being used should be considered 3 2 0 0 0 0 5

A.2.2.13. Water Body Functioning as Typhoon Shelter 1 9 6 1 0 0 17

A.2.2.13.1. The water body should retain the function as

typhoon shelter (for working or recreational boats) 1 7 4 1 0 0 13

A.2.2.13.2. Height for monorail bridge should be large

enough for boat passing 0 2 2 0 0 0 4

A.2.2.14. Water-land Interface 0 10 0 0 0 0 10

A.2.2.14.1. The design should include adequate water-land

interface 0 10 0 0 0 0 10

A.2.2.15. Unobstructed Views to the Surrounding Areas 0 10 0 0 0 0 10

A.2.2.15.1. The views to the surrounding areas should not be

obstructed 0 10 0 0 0 0 10

A.2.3. Specific Area Within Kai Tak Fantasy 9 73 15 6 0 1 104

A.2.3.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip 0 4 1 0 0 0 5

A.2.3.1.1. As a whole 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.2.3.1.5. Runway waterfront promenade 0 2 1 0 0 0 3

A.2.3.2. Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area 0 1 0 1 0 0 2

A.2.3.2.1. As a whole 0 1 0 0 0 0 1


Node

Divided by Channels


A.2.3.2.2. Three existing piers 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

A.2.3.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront

and Runway (the Waterbody) 9 68 14 5 0 1 97

A.2.3.3.1. As a whole 7 52 6 4 0 1 70

A.2.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter 2 15 8 1 0 0 26

A.2.3.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.4. Other Miscellaneous Comments 72 65 0 0 1 0 138

A.2.4.01. The design should meet the needs of people 21 22 0 0 0 0 43

A.2.4.02. The design should look good 13 5 0 0 0 0 18

A.2.4.03. The design should consider all aspects 6 4 0 0 0 0 10

A.2.4.04. The design should facilitate economic development 7 2 0 0 0 0 9

A.2.4.05. The ideas of different entries can be combined 5 4 0 0 0 0 9

A.2.4.06. The design should facilitate tourism 4 1 0 0 1 0 6

A.2.4.07. The design should look modern 2 4 0 0 0 0 6

A.2.4.08. The Jury should consider example of waterfront

development in other cities 1 4 0 0 0 0 5

A.2.4.09. The design should improve people's life 4 4 0 0 0 0 8

A.2.4.10. The design should be interactive 2 2 0 0 0 0 4

A.2.4.11. The design should bring vibrancy 1 3 0 0 0 0 4

A.2.4.12. The design should consider the influence to

neighbourhood during construction 1 2 0 0 0 0 3

A.2.4.13. The design can refer to similar projects in other cities 1 2 0 0 0 0 3

A.2.4.14. The design should consider number of people who

will use the facilities 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

A.2.4.15. The design should not target mainlanders 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

A.2.4.16. The design should consider programming design 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.4.17. The design should consider population issues 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.4.18. The design should be systematic 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.4.19. The design should be user-friendly 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.4.20. Whether the design resemble other existing designs 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.2.4.21. The design should comply with relevant ordinances

and requirements 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Note: Bolded if Total Count is at least 30

Of the 2,983 comments about ‘What the jury should consider’ , 1,371 were about the

assessment criteria, 1,370 were about the technical aspects and design considerations,

104 were about specific areas within KTF and there were 138 other miscellaneous

comments.

Of the 1,371 comments about the assessment criteria, 645 were about sustainability

and green design (including 560 about the need for this (“Eco-friendly, less pollution”)

and 35 about the need to address water quality (“The water treatment before flowing

into the harbour is important”), 242 about feasibility in implementation (including 184

about the need for a feasible implementation (“It must be plausible”) and 50 about the

need to be practical (“(The design) should be practical”)), 164 about need for cost


effectiveness (“Cost effectiveness of the whole project is important”), 121 about the

need for innovation and creativity (“Creativity is a very important factor in the

project”), 95 were about harmonize and synergize with the neighbourhood (including

67 about the need for this (“Connection to the neighbouring community is very

important”), 52 about branding and image (“(The Jury should consider) an iconic

structure for the future look of HK as a smart city”) and 52 about the need for

originality and identity in place-making (“To make Kai Tak unique, it needs

something that is unconventional and unique”).

Of the 1,370 comments about the technical and design considerations, 625 were about

urban planning and design (including 293 about the need (“I believe that the

redevelopment must be looked at from a long term perspective, especially with the

planning”), 74 about having less commercial development (“The last thing I would

like to see is to turn it into another commercial area where Hong Kong already have

plenty”), 67 about more space for sports, leisure and relaxation (“It should be an

attractive place for public to relax in leisure time”), 52 about more public space

(“Please create a public space for the people who live here”) and 39 about the need for

diversity(“The city design should consider diversity”)), 124 about connectivity

(including 62 about the need to consider connectivity, traffic and accessibility (“think

of accessibility”), 116 about architecture (including 45 about the need (“(The jury

should consider the) architecture”) and 36 about the need to consider the appearance,

perspective and character of the architectural design(“(The jury should consider) the

appearance and style of the building”)), 101 about place-making strategies (including

71 about the need for a theme, events and facilities to attract visitors (“It is better to

have a night market with small stalls to attract people to visit”), 70 about showcasing

local culture and heritage (including 60 about display of the culture and heritage of

the city (“We need to bring in elements of the historical past of the area - old buildings,

relics, the old stone bridge, the original/first settlers in the area to give the place its

character”), 70 about landscape architecture (including 62 about the need to consider

this (“The jury should consider more the landscape architecture”), 67 about

engineering (including 48 about the need to consider this (“(the jury should consider

the) engineering”)) and 62 about providing suitable water-based activities in the water

body (“The water body should have huge free space for all kinds of water sports

activities”).

Of the 104 comments about specific areas, 97 were about the closed waterbody,

including 70 about the waterbody as a whole (“Make good use of the unoccupied

water body”).


Of the 138 miscellaneous comments, 43 were about the meeting the needs of the

people (“(The design should) fulfill the needs of people from different social

classes”)).

3.4 Feedback on the Individual Entries

Table 3.2 shows the breakdown of the 2,682 comments on individual entries by entry.

Table 3.2 Feedback on the Individual Entries by Entries

Node

Divided by Entries

Total Entry A* Entry B* Entry C* Entry D*

A.3. Feedback on Individual Entries (specified by C.1) 889 576 687 530 2682

A.3.1. Criteria in Assessment Guideline 451 306 369 249 1375

A.3.1.1. A) Branding and Image 19 21 9 18 67

A.3.1.1.1. Positive Comments 12 17 5 12 46

A.3.1.1.1.1. The design is iconic or includes iconic

structure 6 10 1 5 22

A.3.1.1.1.2. The design promotes the brand and image of

Hong Kong 3 2 2 4 11

A.3.1.1.1.3. The design draws people's attention 3 5 2 3 13

A.3.1.1.2. Negative Comments 7 4 4 6 21

A.3.1.1.2.1. The design is not iconic and does not include

any iconic structure 2 0 0 1 3

A.3.1.1.2.2. The design cannot promotes the brand and

image of Hong Kong 3 3 2 4 12

A.3.1.1.2.3. The design doesn't draw people's attention 2 1 2 1 6

A.3.1.2. B) Innovation and Creativity 140 79 87 67 373


A.3.1.2.1.1. The design is innovative and creative 128 61 66 42 297


A.3.1.2.2.1. The design is neither innovative nor creative 12 18 21 25 76

A.3.1.3. C) Originality and Identity in place making 42 33 26 35 136


A.3.1.3.1.1. The design makes Kai Tak a place with

originality and identity 35 20 12 12 79


A.3.1.3.2.1. The design does not make Kai Tak a place

with originality and identity 7 13 14 23 57

A.3.1.4. D) Harmonize and Synergize with the Neighbourhood 24 22 11 16 73


A.3.1.4.1.1. The design integrates into and connects to the

neighbourhood to achieve harmonization 10 4 2 3 19

A.3.1.4.1.2. The design creates synergy effect in the area

development 5 5 3 5 18


A.3.1.4.2.1. The design neither integrates into nor connects

to the neighbourhood to achieve harmonization 4 6 3 6 19

A.3.1.4.2.2. The design does not create synergy effect in

the area development 5 3 1 1 10


Node

Divided by Entries


A.3.1.4.3. Neutral Comments 0 4 2 1 7

A.3.1.4.3.1. The design may consider more on integration

and connection to the neighbourhood to achieve

harmonization 0 4 1 0 5

A.3.1.4.3.2. The design may consider more on creating

synergy effect in the area development 0 0 1 1 2

A.3.1.5. E) Sustainability and Green Design (including Safety

and Health Life Style) 102 110 180 63 455


A.3.1.5.1.1. The design is green and sustainable 48 91 143 51 333

A.3.1.5.1.2. The design promotes healthy life style 0 1 5 0 6

A.3.1.5.1.3. The design addresses the water quality

problem 3 0 2 0 5

A.3.1.5.1.4. The design can cope with safety issues 2 0 1 0 3

A.3.1.5.1.4.1. The design has considered the effect of

weather on green and safety design 0 0 1 0 1

A.3.1.5.1.4.2. The design can cope with other safety

issues 2 0 0 0 2


A.3.1.5.2.1. The design is not green and sustainable 13 8 9 8 38

A.3.1.5.2.2. The design does not promote healthy life style 0 0 1 0 1

A.3.1.5.2.3. The design does not address the water quality

problem 1 0 1 0 2

A.3.1.5.2.4. The design lacks consideration on safety

issues 14 1 3 1 19

A.3.1.5.2.4.1. The design did not consider the effect of

weather on green and safety design 10 0 1 0 11

A.3.1.5.2.4.2. The design lacks consideration on safety

issues 4 1 2 1 8


A.3.1.5.3.1. The design may consider more on safety

issues 11 1 2 1 15

A.3.1.5.3.1.1. The design may need to consider the

effect of weather on green and safety design 6 1 1 0 8

A.3.1.5.3.1.2. The design may consider more on other

safety issues 5 0 1 1 7

A.3.1.5.3.2. The design may consider more green and

sustainable design 5 7 8 2 22

A.3.1.5.3.3. The design may consider more on the water

quality problem 2 0 3 0 5

A.3.1.5.3.4. The design may consider an adequate sewage

and waste management design 3 0 1 0 4

A.3.1.5.3.5. Other neutral comments concerning

sustainability and green design 0 1 1 0 2

A.3.1.6. F) Feasibility in implementation 100 29 42 39 210


A.3.1.6.1.1. The design is feasible and implementable 11 7 8 9 35

A.3.1.6.1.2. The design is practical 6 4 6 9 25

A.3.1.6.1.3. The design requires less maintenance 0 0 1 0 1


A.3.1.6.2.1. The design is not feasible and implementable 52 10 15 15 92


Node

Divided by Entries


A.3.1.6.2.2. The design is not practical 10 3 4 4 21

A.3.1.6.2.3. The design is difficult in maintenance 5 2 2 0 9


A.3.1.6.3.1. The design may consider more on feasibility

in implementation 9 3 5 1 18

A.3.1.6.3.2. The design may consider more on

maintenance issues 5 0 1 1 7

A.3.1.6.3.3. The design may consider more on practicality 2 0 0 0 2

A.3.1.7. G) Cost Effectiveness 23 12 14 11 60


A.3.1.7.1.1. The design is cost-effective 8 2 6 2 18


A.3.1.7.2.1. The design is not cost-effective 11 10 8 9 38


A.3.1.7.3.1. The design may consider more on

cost-effectiveness 4 0 0 0 4

A.3.1.8. H) Response to design requirement 1 0 0 0 1


A.3.1.8.1.1. The design meets the design requirements 1 0 0 0 1

A.3.2. Technical Aspects and Design Considerations 342 206 236 214 998

A.3.2.01. Urban Planning and Design 63 43 99 84 289


A.3.2.1.1.01. The design includes adequate places for

sports, leisure and relaxation activities 6 2 23 6 37

A.3.2.1.1.02. The design includes adequate public space 8 3 21 2 34

A.3.2.1.1.03. The design creates diversity 6 2 8 24 40

A.3.2.1.1.04. The design shows good urban planning,

design and good use of space in general 2 3 3 4 12

A.3.2.1.1.05. The design includes adequate places for

commercial development 1 1 2 1 5

A.3.2.1.1.06. The design includes adequate places for arts


A.3.2.1.1.07. The design is less commercial 1 0 2 0 3

A.3.2.1.1.08. The design has enough capacities to handle

large amount of visitors 0 1 0 0 1

A.3.2.1.1.13. Other positive comments on urban planning

and design 2 2 5 5 14


A.3.2.1.2.01. The design lacks places for sports, leisure

and relaxation activities 3 0 3 0 6

A.3.2.1.2.02. The design lacks enough public space 3 1 0 1 5

A.3.2.1.2.03. The design lacks diversity 1 1 1 1 4

A.3.2.1.2.04. The design lacks good urban planning,

design and good use of space in general 3 1 2 1 7

A.3.2.1.2.05. The design lacks enough places for

commercial development 1 0 2 1 4

A.3.2.1.2.06. The design lacks enough places for arts


A.3.2.1.2.07. The design is too commercial 10 13 7 24 54

A.3.2.1.2.08. The design does not have enough capacities 1 0 0 0 1


Node

Divided by Entries


to handle large amount of visitors

A.3.2.1.2.09. The design is loosely organized 5 0 0 1 6

A.3.2.1.2.10. The design includes too much green zone 0 1 3 0 4

A.3.2.1.2.11. The design is too diversified and lacks of

focus 1 1 2 1 5

A.3.2.1.2.12. The design lacks residential development 0 1 0 0 1

A.3.2.1.2.13. Other negative comments on urban planning



A.3.2.1.3.1. The design may include more commercial

elements 1 0 1 0 2

A.3.2.1.3.2. The design may include more sports, leisure

and relaxation facilities 1 2 1 1 5

A.3.2.1.3.3. The design may need to consider the

capacities to handle large amount of visitors 0 1 0 0 1

A.3.2.1.3.4. Other neutral comments on urban planning


A.3.2.03. Place-making Strategies 81 36 42 32 191


A.3.2.3.1.1. The design proposes an adequate theme,

events and facilities to attract visitors 57 26 30 19 132

A.3.2.3.1.2. The design includes a right combination of

commercial activities to draw visitors 4 0 4 2 10


A.3.2.3.2.1. The design lacks an adequate theme, events

and facilities to attract visitors 7 5 6 6 24

A.3.2.3.2.2. The design lacks a right combination of



A.3.2.3.3.1. The design may need an adequate theme,

events and facilities to attract visitors 3 1 1 3 8

A.3.2.3.3.2. The design may include a right combination of


A.3.2.09. Flexible Design 78 7 13 16 114


A.3.2.9.1.1. The design is flexible for holding urban city

event or future use 76 5 11 14 106


A.3.2.9.2.1. The design is not flexible for holding urban

city event or future use 2 2 2 2 8

A.3.2.02. Architecture 12 50 14 26 102


A.3.2.2.1.1. The architectural design is good in forms of

appearance, atmospheric perspective and character 4 31 9 16 60

A.3.2.2.1.2. The architectural design is good in terms of

functionality and use of space 0 1 0 2 3

A.3.2.2.1.3. The architectural design is good in terms of

the building materials used 0 0 0 2 2


A.3.2.2.2.1. The architectural design is not good in forms

of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character 3 11 4 3 21


Node

Divided by Entries


A.3.2.2.2.2. The architectural design is not good in terms

of functionality and use of space 1 2 1 0 4

A.3.2.2.2.3. The architectural design is not good in terms

of the building materials used 1 0 0 0 1


A.3.2.2.3.1. The forms of appearance, atmospheric

perspective and character of the architectural design may

need more concerns 2 5 0 3 10

A.3.2.2.3.2. The functionality and use of space of the

architectural design may need more concerns 1 0 0 0 1

A.3.2.04. Connectivity 19 18 14 17 68


A.3.2.4.1.1. The design has adequate connectivity, traffic

and accessibility in general 8 5 2 5 20

A.3.2.4.1.2. It is good to include cycle track in the design 2 0 3 1 6

A.3.2.4.1.3. It is good to include EFLS (monorail) in the

design 0 1 1 3 5

A.3.2.4.1.4. The design has adequate pedestrian access 4 1 0 0 5

A.3.2.4.1.5. The design has adequate land transport

connection 0 0 2 0 2


A.3.2.4.2.1. The design does not have adequate

connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general 0 1 2 2 5

A.3.2.4.2.3. It is not good to include EFLS (monorail) in

the design 0 1 0 2 3

A.3.2.4.2.4. The design does not have adequate pedestrian

access 1 3 0 0 4

A.3.2.4.2.5. The design does not have adequate land

transport connection 0 1 0 0 1

A.3.2.4.2.6. The design does not have adequate water


A.3.2.4.2.7. The design does not have adequate connection

to current mass transit system 1 1 1 1 4


A.3.2.4.3.1. The design may consider more on the

connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general 1 1 0 0 2

A.3.2.4.3.2. The design may consider inclusion of a cycle

track 1 2 1 1 5

A.3.2.4.3.3. The design may consider inclusion of EFLS

(monorail) 0 0 1 0 1

A.3.2.4.3.4. The design may consider more on pedestrian

access 0 1 0 0 1

A.3.2.4.3.5. The design may consider more adequate land


A.3.2.4.3.6. The design may consider more on water


A.3.2.05. Showcase of Local Culture and Heritage 39 9 8 10 66


A.3.2.5.1.1. The design displays the culture and heritage of

the city 33 1 2 6 42

A.3.2.5.1.2. The design displays the old Kai Tak airport 2 2 0 1 5


Node

Divided by Entries


heritage


A.3.2.5.2.1. The design does not display the culture and

heritage of the city 2 4 3 3 12

A.3.2.5.2.2. The design does not display the old Kai Tak

airport heritage 0 0 1 0 1


A.3.2.5.3.1. The design may display more the culture and

heritage of the city 1 1 1 0 3

A.3.2.08. Providing Suitable Water-based Activities in the

Water Body 17 11 16 8 52


A.3.2.8.1.1. The design proposes suitable water-based

activities in general 7 0 7 0 14

A.3.2.8.1.2. The design proposes adequate water sports

(e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.) 2 0 1 0 3


A.3.2.8.2.1. The design does not propose suitable

water-based activities in general 2 4 2 3 11

A.3.2.8.2.2. The design does not propose adequate water

sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.) 5 5 5 5 20


A.3.2.8.3.1. The design may propose more suitable

water-based activities in general 1 2 1 0 4

A.3.2.10. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance OR

Reclamation issues 9 9 12 5 35


A.3.2.10.1.1. The design does not require reclamation and

observe the PHO 2 3 3 2 10


A.3.2.10.2.1. The design requires reclamation or does not

observe the PHO 7 6 6 3 22


A.3.2.10.3.1. The design may require reclamation and may

not comply with the PHO 0 0 3 0 3

A.3.2.13. Water Body Functioning as Typhoon Shelter 12 8 6 8 34


A.3.2.13.1.1. The design retain the function of typhoon

shelter 2 0 0 2 4


A.3.2.13.2.1. The design block the use of the typhoon

shelter 8 5 5 5 23

A.3.2.13.2.2. The headroom of the monorail bridge is not

tall enough for ship passage 1 2 1 1 5


A.3.2.13.3.1. The design may consider retaining the use of

the typhoon shelter 1 1 0 0 2

A.3.2.06. Landscape Architecture 3 5 5 2 15


A.3.2.6.1.1. The landscape architecture of the design is

good in general 2 4 4 1 11


Node

Divided by Entries



A.3.2.6.3.1. The design may consider more on landscape

architecture 1 1 1 1 4

A.3.2.15. Unobstructed Views to the Surrounding Areas 2 5 3 3 13


A.3.2.15.1.1. The design does not obstruct the views to the

surrounding 0 3 1 1 5


A.3.2.15.2.1. The design obstructs the views to the

surrounding 2 2 2 2 8

A.3.2.14. Water-land Interface 4 2 3 2 11


A.3.2.14.1.1. The design includes adequate water-land

interface 3 1 2 0 6


A.3.2.14.2.1. The design does not include adequate

water-land interface 1 1 1 2 5

A.3.2.07. Engineering 3 1 0 0 4


A.3.2.7.2.1. The design has engineering issues 1 0 0 0 1


A.3.2.7.3.1. The design may need to consider more in

engineering aspect 2 1 0 0 3

A.3.2.12. Surveying 0 2 1 1 4


A.3.2.12.2.1. The ratio of land being used is too low 0 2 1 1 4

A.3.3. Regarding Specific Area Mentioned by Respondents 63 34 39 35 171

A.3.3.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip 1 0 2 1 4

A.3.3.1.1. As a whole 1 0 2 1 4

A.3.3.1.1.2. Negative Comments 0 0 1 1 2

A.3.3.1.1.3. Neutral Comments 1 0 1 0 2

A.3.3.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront

and Runway (the Waterbody) 62 34 37 34 167

A.3.3.3.1. As a whole 50 27 31 27 135

A.3.3.3.1.1. Positive Comments 32 6 14 8 60



A.3.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter 12 7 6 7 32

A.3.3.3.2.1. Positive Comments 3 0 1 2 6



A.3.4. Other Miscellaneous Comments 33 30 43 32 138

A.3.4.1. Positive Comments 9 14 14 11 48

A.3.4.1.01. The design looks good 3 10 6 6 25

A.3.4.1.02. The design looks modern 0 2 1 3 6

A.3.4.1.03. The design meets people's needs 3 2 3 1 9

A.3.4.1.05. The design brings vibrancy 2 0 1 0 3

A.3.4.1.07. The design facilitates economic development 1 0 1 0 2

A.3.4.1.08. The design has considered all aspects 0 0 2 0 2


Node

Divided by Entries


A.3.4.1.09. The design improves life quality of people 0 0 0 1 1

A.3.4.2. Negative Comments 5 1 4 4 14

A.3.4.2.01. The design does not look good 1 0 1 0 2

A.3.4.2.03. The design does not meet people's needs 2 1 1 1 5

A.3.4.2.04. The design looks too exaggerating 1 0 1 1 3

A.3.4.2.05. The design looks too plain 0 0 0 1 1

A.3.4.2.06. The design looks not serious 1 0 0 0 1

A.3.4.2.10. The theme name of the design is not good 0 0 0 1 1

A.3.4.2.11. The design looks too upscale 0 0 1 0 1

A.3.4.3. Neutral Comments 19 15 25 17 76

A.3.4.3.1. The ideas of specific entries can be combined 17 15 24 16 72

A.3.4.3.2. The design resembles specific existing designs 2 0 1 0 3

A.3.4.3.3. The design is in American style 0 0 0 1 1

Bold is used if the Count is at least 20

Of the 2,682 comments on individual entries by entry, 1,375 refer to the assessment

criteria, 998 refer to the technical and design considerations, 171 refer to specific

areas and 138 were miscellaneous comments.

Of the 1,375 comments relating to the assessment criteria, 455 were about

sustainability and green design, 373 about innovation and creativity, 210 about

feasibility in implementation, 136 about originality and identity in place-making, 73

about harmony and synergy with the neighbourhood, 67 about branding and image, 60

about cost effectiveness.

Of the 455 comments about sustainability and green design, 347 were positive

comments including 333 about the design being green and sustainable, including 143

for Entry C (“Entry C includes the largest green area”), 91 for Entry B (“The

extensive use of renewable energy in entry B is appreciated”), 51 for Entry D (“Entry

D is unique and can reduce the energy consumption in Hong Kong”) and 48 for Entry

A (“environmentally friendly design, operation, sustainability”). There were also 28

negative (“There are too many lights in the design of Entry A which would create

serious light pollution”) and 21 neutral comments about Entry A (“the practicality of

the floating pots and sustainability remains something to be worked out by the

construction experts”).

Of the 373 comments about innovation and creativity, 297 were positive (128 for

Entry A (“Like the idea of floating structure! Dynamic, versatile, innovative”), 66 for

Entry C (“The idea of floating island is very creative!”), 61 for Entry B (“I find the


idea of "Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment" very innovative and very

environmental-friendly”) and 42 for Entry D (“I like D because the design is

innovative”)) and 76 were negative (25 for Entry D (“The design of "Dragon Park" is

overused and lacks creativity”) and 21 for Entry C (“average and not creative”)).

Of the 210 comments about feasibility in implementation, 61 were positive and 122

were negative (including 67 about Entry A (including 52 that the design is not feasible

(“doubt if it can bear a heavy load and still be easy to move to a different location”))

and 21 about Entry C (“It is too conceptual and difficult to materialize”).

Of the 136 comments about originality and identity in place-making, 79 were positive

(35 for Entry A (: “The floating pontoons concept has given a special character to the

area”) and 20 for Entry B (“This landmark architecture that gives this area a definition

and identity”) ) and 57 were negative (23 for Entry D (“dull and lacks any kind of

identity”)).

Of the 73 comments about harmony and synergy with the neighbourhood, 24 were

about Entry A (“the best design among all because it also addresses the connection

between the new development and the old district area of Kwun Tong”) and 22 about

Entry B (“Exhibition B presents the most realistic and connected idea to Kai Tak and

larger Kowloon area”).

Of the 67 comments about branding and image, 21 were about Entry B (“Entry B is

iconic and resembles the old airport 'taking off' point.”).

Of the 60 comments about cost effectiveness, 23 were about Entry A (“A is the best

idea and most cost-effective”).

Of the 998 comments about the technical and design considerations, 289 were about

urban planning and design, 191 about place-making strategies, 114 about flexible

design, 102 about architecture, 68 about connectivity, 66 about showcase of local

culture and heritage and 52 about providing suitable water-based activity.

Of the 289 comments about urban planning and design, 150 were positive comments

of which 64 were about Entry C (23 about leaving space for sports, leisure and

relaxation (“Entry C is a wonderful entry, as this entry provides a recreational area for

the community to enjoying their peaceful time”) and 21 about adequate public space

(“It offers more green areas and water frontage dedicated to the public”)), 44 about

Entry D (including 24 that it creates diversity (“Entry D is special as it includes


diverse cultures”)) and 27 about Entry A (“good planning”). Of the 127 negative

comments, 38 were about Entry D (24 about being too commercial (“Too commercial

and it looks like Macau somehow”)), 34 about Entry A (“just like a typical shopping

arcade”), 30 about Entry C (“The design of entry C is too commercial”) and 25 about

Entry B (“Just too commercial”).

Of the 191 comments about place-making strategies, 142 were positive, mainly about

an adequate theme to attract visitors (of which 61 were about Entry A (“It fills the area

with vibrancy”), 34 about Entry C (“render itself into a world-class tourist spot and a

popular destination for both resident and sport-lovers”), 26 about Entry B (“The

eco-terrace architecture helps to transform the Kai Tak Development Area into a new

tourist spot”), 21 about Entry D (“It turns Hong Kong from a cultural desert to a lively

place”)) and 37 negative.

Of the 114 comments about flexible design, 106 were positive about being flexible for

future events and use (of which 76 were about Entry A (“The system allows

configurations that will be invented in the future”)) and 8 were negative.

Of the 102 comments about architecture, 65 were positive (of which 32 were about

Entry B (31 about good in terms of appearance, perspective and character (“Entry B is

the only one that has a unique architecture form”)) and 20 about Entry D (“I choose

the Dragon park as a practical solution, with strong identity, modern appearance”))

and 26 were negative.

Of the 68 comments about connectivity, 38 were positive and 19 were negative.

Of the 66 comments about showcase of local culture and heritage, 47 were positive, of

which 35 were about Entry A (33 about displaying the culture and heritage of the city

(“It preserves the character of old fishing villages of Hong Kong”) and 13 were

negative.

Of the 171 comments about specific areas, 167 referred to the waterbody, of which

135 referred to the whole waterbody, with 60 positive comments (of which 32 were

about Entry A (“It seems that only option A makes good use of the area of the typhoon

shelter”)) and 66 negative comments.

Of the 138 miscellaneous comments, 72 were about combining ideas of specific

entries (24 were about Entry C (“If the ideas of entry B and C can mix together, with

local culture from entry A, it will be the best of all worlds”)).


3.5 Feedback on the Key Ideas of the Individual Entries

Table 3.3 shows the 323 comments on the key ideas of the entries broken down by

channel.

Table 3.3 Feedback on the Key Ideas of the Individual Entries by Channel

Node

Divided by Channels


A.4. Feedback on the Key Ideas of Individual Entries 115 207 0 0 0 1 323

A.4.1. Entry A 40 77 0 0 0 0 117

A.4.1.1. Seamless modern and tradition integration 8 26 0 0 0 0 34

A.4.1.1.1. Positive Comments 8 26 0 0 0 0 34

A.4.1.2. Easy configuration with modular systems 28 47 0 0 0 0 75


A.4.1.2.2. Negative Comments 2 6 0 0 0 0 8

A.4.1.2.3. Neutral Comments 1 3 0 0 0 0 4

A.4.1.3. Cost-effective and practical construction 4 4 0 0 0 0 8



A.4.2. Entry B 31 54 0 0 0 1 86

A.4.2.1. Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment 10 16 0 0 0 0 26



A.4.2.2. Reconnect to the Mother Nature 16 16 0 0 0 1 33




A.4.2.3. Formula E Evolves the Future 5 22 0 0 0 0 27




A.4.3. Entry C 24 57 0 0 0 0 81

A.4.3.1. Diverse enterprises 2 2 0 0 0 0 4



A.4.3.2. Natural ecology 11 36 0 0 0 0 47



A.4.3.3. Healthy city 11 19 0 0 0 0 30



A.4.4. Entry D 20 19 0 0 0 0 39

A.4.4.1. A Constantly evolving Flexible Space 1 6 0 0 0 0 7


A.4.4.2. Meaningfully Engage local authentic Culture 11 8 0 0 0 0 19


A.4.4.3. Experience and reconnect with nature 8 5 0 0 0 0 13


Bold is used if the Count is at least 20


Of the 323 comments about the key ideas of the entries, 117 were about Entry A, 86

about Entry B, 81 about Entry C and 39 about Entry D.

Among the 117 comments about Entry A, 63 were positive comments about “Easy

configuration with modular systems” (It has the most flexibility for creating different

kinds of space”) and 34 were positive comments about “Seamless modern and

tradition integration” (“It brings in the traditional Hong Kong culture”).

Among the 86 comments about Entry B, 28 were positive comments about

“Reconnect to the mother nature” (“My favourite key idea of reconnecting to nother

nature because I feel that the world is increasingly aware of global warming”) and 24

were positive comments about “Eco-terrace regenerates the environment” (“I find the

idea of "Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment" very innovative and very

environmental-friendly”).

Among the 81 comments about Entry C, 46 were positive comments about “Natural

ecology” (“My favourite idea is people trying to connect to another nature and bring

alertness to the public of dangerous global warming”) and 29 were positive comments

about “Healthy city” (“Hongkong needs such a place for nature and health”).

Among the 39 comments about Entry D, the most common was 19 positive comments

about “Meaningfully engage local culture”2 (“Tourists would have an enriching

experience of the culture on Hong Kong”).

2 This count is below the limit, but is reported as the most commonly responded to key idea for this

Entry.


3.6 Feedback on Place-making or What Should be Built at KTF

Table 3.4 shows the 39 comments on place-making or what should be built at KTF

broken down by channel3.

Table 3.4 Feedback on Place-making or what should be Built at KTF

Node

Divided by Channels


A.5. Respondents' Own Specific Ideas on Place-making OR What

Should be Built at KTF 5 29 5 0 0 0 39

A.5.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip 0 4 1 0 0 0 5

A.5.1.3. Runway Park 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

A.5.1.2. Tourism Node 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.5.1.4. Runway Waterfront Promenade 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.5.1.5. Heliport 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.5.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and

Runway (the Waterbody) 4 3 4 0 0 0 11

A.5.3.1. As a whole 4 2 1 0 0 0 7

A.5.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

A.5.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

A.5.4. Unspecified Area in KTF 1 22 0 0 0 0 23

Bold is used if the Total Count is at least 30

3.7 Feedback on Other Issues

Table 3.5 shows the breakdown of the 29 comments on macro issues by channel.

Table 3.5 Macro Issues by Channel

Node

Divided by Channels


A.6. Macro Issues 6 19 0 3 0 1 29

A.6.1. Urban Planning of Hong Kong 4 9 0 0 0 1 14

A.6.2. Urban Planning of KTF's Surrounding Areas 2 6 0 1 0 0 9

A.6.3. Hong Kong's Cultural and Policies or Strategies 0 4 0 2 0 0 6


3 This count is above the limit, but there is no common theme.


Table 3.6 shows the breakdown of the 936 comments about the competition and

public engagement by channel.

Table 3.6: Competition and Public Engagement by Channel

Node

Divided by Channels


A.7. Ideas Competition and Public Engagement 483 444 3 3 1 2 936

A.7.1. Ideas Competition 141 100 0 1 0 0 242

A.7.1.1. Competition Arrangement 141 98 0 1 0 0 240


A.7.1.1.1.1. The competition is meaningful and well-done 102 64 0 0 0 0 166

A.7.1.1.1.2. The competition includes qualified designs 6 3 0 0 0 0 9

A.7.1.1.1.3. The competition allows people to know more

about KTF 4 4 0 0 0 0 8


A.7.1.1.2.2. The competition does not include qualified

entries 10 6 0 0 0 0 16

A.7.1.1.2.1. The competition is not well-organized 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.1.1.2.4. The requirements of the competition is too

rigid 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.1.1.2.5. The competition includes too few entries 9 8 0 0 0 0 17


A.7.1.1.3.01. The design of the winner of the competition

should be adopted for actual development 1 5 0 0 0 0 6

A.7.1.1.3.02. The competition should be fair 3 2 0 0 0 0 5

A.7.1.1.3.03. The public should be allowed to vote for

their favorite entry 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

A.7.1.1.3.04. Other outstanding entries in the first round

competition should be make public 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.7.1.1.3.05. The public should be allowed to set

assessment criteria 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.1.1.3.06. The assessment criteria should be publicized 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.1.1.3.07. The competition should give more

opportunities to local people 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.1.1.3.08. The competition should have proper

assessment criteria 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

A.7.1.1.3.09. The competition should provide incentives 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.1.1.3.10. The entries should show different styles 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.1.2. Competition Documents 0 2 0 0 0 0 2


A.7.1.2.3.1. Chinese version of competition document

should be available 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.7.2. The Public Engagement 342 344 3 2 1 2 694

A.7.2.1. Questionnaire 213 153 0 0 0 0 366


A.7.2.2.1.01. The questionnaire is well-designed in

general 109 66 0 0 0 0 175

A.7.2.2.1.02. The questions are comprehensive 11 4 0 0 0 0 15

A.7.2.2.1.03. The questions are easy to follow 7 8 0 0 0 0 15

A.7.2.2.1.04. The layout is good 3 1 0 0 0 0 4


Node

Divided by Channels


A.7.2.2.1.05. There are enough options to choose 1 3 0 0 0 0 4


A.7.2.2.2.06. The questionnaire is too short 20 13 0 0 0 0 33

A.7.2.2.2.07. The questionnaire is too long 14 12 0 0 0 0 26

A.7.2.2.2.03. The questions are difficult to follow 8 8 0 0 0 0 16

A.7.2.2.2.08. The questions are too complicated 7 6 0 0 0 0 13

A.7.2.2.2.09. The questionnaire does not have enough

blank space to write down opinions 3 4 0 0 0 0 7

A.7.2.2.2.10. The font size is too small 3 4 0 0 0 0 7

A.7.2.2.2.02. The questions are not comprehensive 3 3 0 0 0 0 6

A.7.2.2.2.05. The questionnaire does not have enough

options 4 0 0 0 0 0 4

A.7.2.2.2.01. The questionnaire is poorly designed in

general 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

A.7.2.2.2.04. The layout of the questionnaire is poor 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.7.2.2.2.11. It is easy to manipulate the survey results 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.7.2.2.2.12. The entries are listed in a random order and

it is confusing 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.2.2.13. The questions are misleading 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.2.2.14. The size of the image of entries is too small 1 0 0 0 0 0 1


A.7.2.2.3.1. More instruction and description can be

added in the questionnaire 5 3 0 0 0 0 8

A.7.2.2.3.2. The questionnaire can be printed in black and

white 6 2 0 0 0 0 8

A.7.2.2.3.3. The questionnaire design is fairly good 1 5 0 0 0 0 6

A.7.2.2.3.4. The questionnaire can be printed in color 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

A.7.2.2.3.5. Electronic questionnaire can be provided 1 2 0 0 0 0 3

A.7.2.2.3.6. The questionnaire can include questions

asking for priority for the entries 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

A.7.2.2.3.7. It is not necessary to have images in the

questionnaire 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.2.3.8. A separate questionnaire for professionals can

be provided 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.2. Events and Roving Exhibitions 23 65 0 0 0 0 88


A.7.2.2.1.1. The event or exhibition is informative 4 1 0 0 0 0 5

A.7.2.2.1.2. The event or roving exhibition is generally

well-organized 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

A.7.2.2.1.3. The graphics on the display board are

realistic 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

A.7.2.2.1.4. The information shown in the exhibition is

easy to understand 0 2 0 0 0 0 2


A.7.2.2.2.1. The event or exhibition is not informative

enough 5 18 0 0 0 0 23

A.7.2.2.2.5. The location of the roving exhibition is not

good 0 6 0 0 0 0 6

A.7.2.2.2.4. The information shown in the exhibition is

difficult to understand 1 4 0 0 0 0 5


Node

Divided by Channels


A.7.2.2.2.3. The graphics on the display board are not

realistic 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.2.2.6 The size of fonts on the display board is too

small 0 1 0 0 0 0 1


A.7.2.2.3.1. More information can be mentioned in the

event or exhibition 9 11 0 0 0 0 20

A.7.2.2.3.2. Physical models of the designs can be

displayed in the roving exhibitions 0 8 0 0 0 0 8

A.7.2.2.3.3. Videos can be shown in the roving

exhibitions 0 6 0 0 0 0 6

A.7.2.2.3.4. The roving exhibitions can be held in more

locations 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

A.7.2.2.3.5. More explanation from the promoters can be

provided 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.2.3.6. The display board in the roving exhibition

can be bigger 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.2.3.7. More topics on urban planning can be

included in the roving exhibition 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.3. Video 8 9 2 0 0 2 21


A.7.2.3.1.1. The videos are of good quality 4 1 0 0 0 0 5

A.7.2.3.1.2. The videos explain the ideas of the entries

clearly 0 4 0 0 0 0 4


A.7.2.3.2.1. The videos are of bad quality 1 0 1 0 0 1 3

A.7.2.3.2.2. The videos do not explain the ideas of the

entries clearly 2 1 1 0 0 0 4

A.7.2.3.2.3. The length of the videos is too long 0 1 0 0 0 0 1


A.7.2.3.3.1. The videos can be embedded in the online

questionnaire 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.3.3.2. The competitors can involve more in making

the videos 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.3.3.3. A short introduction can be added to the

videos 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.3.3.4. The language used for narration differs from

one video to another video 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

A.7.2.4. Website 0 9 0 0 0 0 9


A.7.2.4.2.1. The size of the images and text on the

website is too small to read 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

A.7.2.4.2.2. It is not easy to review and compare the

entries on the website 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

A.7.2.4.2.3. It takes too long to load the images 0 1 0 0 0 0 1


A.7.2.4.3.1. Users should be allowed to choose the entry

they would like to view on the website 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.4.3.2. More text description about the entries can be

provided 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.5. Promotion Approach 48 51 1 0 0 0 100


Node

Divided by Channels



A.7.2.5.2.1. The public engagement process lacks of

adequate promotion 16 24 0 0 0 0 40


A.7.2.5.3.1. More promotion can be done in general 29 17 0 0 0 0 46

A.7.2.5.3.2. More promotion can be done on mass media

(e.g. TV, newspapers) 1 7 0 0 0 0 8

A.7.2.5.3.3. More promotion can be done on the Internet 2 2 1 0 0 0 5

A.7.2.5.3.4. More promotion can be done through mobile

apps 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.7. Stakeholders 42 39 0 2 1 0 84


A.7.2.7.1.1. The public are well involved 19 14 0 0 1 0 34


A.7.2.7.2.2. The public are not well involved 2 4 0 0 0 0 6


A.7.2.7.3.1. The public can be involved more in the PE 19 16 0 1 0 0 36

A.7.2.7.3.2. The professionals can be involved more in

the PE 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

A.7.2.7.3.3. The residents living in the surrounding area

can be involved more in the PE 1 1 0 1 0 0 3

A.7.2.7.3.4. The young people can be involved more in

the PE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.7.3.5. Tourists can be involved more in the PE 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

A.7.2.8. Other Views on Public Engagement Exercise 8 18 0 0 0 0 26


A.7.2.8.1.1. The public engagement process is generally

well organized 0 3 0 0 0 0 3


A.7.2.8.2.1. The public engagement is meaningless 1 5 0 0 0 0 6


A.7.2.8.3.1. More public engagement activities can be

held 4 8 0 0 0 0 12

A.7.2.8.3.2. The opinions collected through the PE should

be considered carefully 3 1 0 0 0 0 4

A.7.2.8.3.3. Souvenirs should be given to the participants

of the PE 0 1 0 0 0 0 1


Of the 936 comments about the competition and public engagement, 694 were about

the public engagement and 242 about the competition.

Of the 694 comments about the public engagement, 366 were about the questionnaire,

of which 213 were positive including 175 that the questionnaire is well-designed in

general (“A fine questionnaire, well designed!”) and 121 were negative, including 33

that the questionnaire was too short (“The questionnaire is too short”) and 32 were


neutral (“The questionnaire can be printed in black and white so that it is more

environmental friendly”), 100 were about promotion, including 60 neutral comments

of which 48 suggested more promotion in general (“More promotion can be done”)

and 40 negative comments (“It is a pity that your organization did not list this public

consultation in the government website”), 88 were about the events, of which 13 were

positive, 36 were negative (“There is not enough information to study the individual

designs”) and 39 were neutral (“More details about the feasibility can be provided”)

and 84 about stakeholders, including 34 positive comments about good public

involvement (“Very good, many people can think together”) and 44 neutral comments

(“The opinions from different people in the society can be considered”).

Of the 242 comments about the competition, 240 were about the arrangements, of

which 183 were positive, including 166 that it was meaningful/well-done (“very

meaningful to set up this competition for Kai Tak”) and 35 were negative (“The

quality of the entries is very poor”).

Table 3.7 shows the breakdown of the 166 comments about other miscellaneous

issues by channel4.

Table 3.7 Other Miscellaneous Issues by Channel

Node

Divided by Channels


A.8. Other Miscellaneous Issues 71 83 2 2 2 6 166

A.8.1. KTF's Management Issues 7 11 1 1 1 0 21

A.8.1.1. Management and Operation 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

A.8.1.2. Strategic Positioning of KTF 7 8 1 1 1 0 18

A.8.1.2.1. Target users of KTF should not be tourists only 6 5 0 0 0 0 11

A.8.1.2.2. The current positioning of KTF is inadequate 1 2 0 0 0 0 3

A.8.1.2.3. Target users of KTF should include tourists 0 1 0 0 1 0 2

A.8.1.2.4. The positioning of KTF should not overlap with

the WKCD 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

A.8.1.2.5. The whole Kai Tak approach channel should be

included in the KTF project 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

A.8.2. Any Other Opinions (which cannot be categorized) 64 72 1 1 1 6 145


4 While the count is above the limit, there is no common theme to report.


Chapter Four Conclusion

4.1 Quantitative Findings

This section aims to summarize the relative strengths of the four entries, based on the

quantitative findings, i.e. the proportion of respondents who rated an entry as

Excellent on the close-ended questions in the 4,094 feedback forms described in

Chapter Two.

4.1.1 Entry A

This entry was given the highest rating on Identity and Creativity by both adults and

adolescents. It was also given the highest rating on Neighbourhood synergy by adults.

The highest rated idea was “Easy configuration with modular systems”.

4.1.2 Entry B

This entry was not rated highest on any domain or overall by either adults or

adolescents and the only domain where it rated second was Identity, where

adolescents rated it second. The highest rated idea was “Eco-Terrace Regenerates the

Environment” by adults and “Reconnect to Mother Nature” by adolescents.

4.1.3 Entry C

This entry was given the highest rating overall by adults and highest rating for

Sustainability by both adults and adolescents. The highest rated ideas by both adults

and adolescents were “Healthy city” and “Natural ecology” which were rated almost

the same by both groups.

4.1.4 Entry D

This entry was given the highest rating overall by adolescents and highest rating for

Neighbourhood synergy by adolescents. The highest rated idea by both adults and

adolescents was “Meaningfully engage with local authentic culture”.


4.2 Qualitative Conclusions

The commonly expressed views presented in Chapter Three are summarized in bullet

point form in decreasing count order, with the comment count in brackets.

4.2.1 Assessment Criteria

Assessment criteria (1371)

o sustainability and green design (645)

need for this (560) (“Eco-friendly, less pollution”)

need to address water quality (35) (“The water treatment before

flowing into the harbour is important”)

o feasibility in implementation (242)

need for a feasible implementation (184) (“It must be

plausible”)

need to be practical (50) (“(The design) should be practical”))

o need for cost effectiveness (164) (“Cost effectiveness of the whole

project is important”)

o need for innovation and creativity (121) (“Creativity is a very

important factor in the project”)

o harmonize and synergize with the neighbourhood (95)

the need for this (67) (“Connection to the neighbouring

community is very important”))

o branding and image (52) (“(The Jury should consider) an iconic

structure for the future look of HK as a smart city”)

o need for originality and identity in place-making (52) (“To make Kai

Tak unique, it needs something that is unconventional and unique”).

4.2.2 Technical and Design Considerations

o technical and design considerations (1370)

o urban planning and design (625)

need (293) (“I believe that the redevelopment must be looked at

from a long term perspective, especially with the planning”)

having less commercial development (74) (“The last thing I

would like to see is to turn it into another commercial area

where Hong Kong already have plenty”)

more space for sports, leisure and relaxation (67) (“It should be


an attractive place for public to relax in leisure time”)

more public space (52) (“Please create a public space for the

people who live here”)

need for diversity (39) (“The city design should consider

diversity”)

o connectivity (124)

need to consider connectivity, traffic and accessibility (62)

(“think of accessibility”)

o architecture (116)

need (45) (“(The jury should consider the) architecture”))

need to consider the appearance, perspective and

character of the architectural design (36) (“(The jury

should consider) the appearance and style of the

building”))

o place-making strategies (101)

need for a theme, events and facilities to attract visitors (71)

(“It is better to have a night market with small stalls to attract

people to visit”))

o showcasing local culture and heritage (70)

display of the culture and heritage of the city (60) (“We need to

bring in elements of the historical past of the area - old

buildings, relics, the old stone bridge, the original/first settlers

in the area to give the place its character”)

o landscape architecture (70)

need to consider this (62) (“The jury should consider more the

landscape architecture”)

o engineering (67)

need to consider this (48) (“(the jury should consider the)

engineering”))

o providing suitable water-based activities in the water body (62) (“The

water body should have huge free space for all kinds of water sports

activities”).


4.2.3 Specific Areas

o the closed waterbody (97)

o the waterbody as a whole (70) (“Make good use of the unoccupied

water body”).

4.2.4 Other Comments

o meeting the needs of the people (43) (“(The design should) fulfill the needs of

people from different social classes”)).

4.2.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of Entries

Entry A

Strengths

o positive about innovation and creativity (128) (“Like the idea of floating

structure! Dynamic, versatile, innovative”)

o positive about flexible design for future events and use (76) (“The system

allows configurations that will be invented in the future”)

o positive about place-making strategies (61) (“It fills the area with vibrancy”)

o positive comments about originality and identity in place-making (35) (“The

floating pontoons concept has given a special character to the area”)

o positive about showcase of local culture and heritage (35)

o displaying the culture and heritage of the city (33) (“It preserves the

character of old fishing villages of Hong Kong”)

o positive that referred to the whole waterbody (32), with 60 positive comments

(“It seems that only option A makes good use of the area of the typhoon

shelter”)

o harmony and synergy with the neighbourhood (24) (“the best design among

all because it also addresses the connection between the new development and

the old district area of Kwun Tong”)

o cost effectiveness (23) (“A is the best idea and most cost-effective”).

Mixed

o positive (48), neutral (21) and negative (28) about the design being green and

sustainable (“environmentally friendly design, operation, sustainability”, “the

practicality of the floating pots and sustainability remains something to be


worked out by the construction experts”,“There are too many lights in the

design of Entry A which would create serious light pollution”)

o positive (27) and negative (34) about urban planning and design (“good

planning”,“just like a typical shopping arcade”)

Weaknesses

o negative about feasibility in implementation(67)

o the design is not feasible(52) (“doubt if it can bear a heavy load and

still be easy to move to a different location”)

Key ideas

o key ideas for Entry A(117)

o positive (63) about “Easy configuration with modular systems” (It has

the most flexibility for creating different kinds of space”)

o positive (34) about “Seamless modern and tradition integration” (“It

brings in the traditional Hong Kong culture”).

Entry B

Strengths

o positive about sustainability and green design (91) (“The extensive use of

renewable energy in entry B is appreciated”)

o positive about innovation and creativity (61) (“I find the idea of "Eco-Terrace

Regenerates the Environment" very innovative and very

environmental-friendly”)

o positive about architecture (32)

o good in terms of appearance, perspective and character (31) (“Entry B

is the only one that has a unique architecture form”)

o positive about place-making strategies (26) (“The eco-terrace architecture

helps to transform the Kai Tak Development Area into a new tourist spot”)

o harmony and synergy with the neighbourhood (22) (“Exhibition B presents the

most realistic and connected idea to Kai Tak and larger Kowloon area”)

o branding and image (21) (“Entry B is iconic and resembles the old airport

'taking off' point.”)

o positive about originality and identity in place-making (20) (“This landmark

architecture that gives this area a definition and identity”).

Weaknesses

o negative about urban planning and design (25) (“Just too commercial”).


Key ideas

o key ideas of Entry B (86)

o positive (28) about “Reconnect to the mother nature” (“My favourite

key idea of reconnecting to nother nature because I feel that the world

is increasingly aware of global warming”)

o positive (24) comments about “Eco-terrace regenerates the

environment” (“I find the idea of "Eco-Terrace Regenerates the

Environment" very innovative and very environmental-friendly”)

Entry C

Strengths

o positive (143) about sustainability and green design (“Entry C includes the

largest green area”)

o positive (34) about place-making strategies (“render itself into a world-class

tourist spot and a popular destination for both resident and sport-lovers”)

Mixed

o positive (66) and negative (21) about innovation and creativity (“The idea of

floating island is very creative!”,“average and not creative”)

o urban planning and design

o positive (64)

23 about leaving space for sports, leisure and relaxation (“Entry

C is a wonderful entry, as this entry provides a recreational area

for the community to enjoying their peaceful time”)

21 about adequate public space (“It offers more green areas and

water frontage dedicated to the public”)

o negative (30) (“The design of entry C is too commercial”)

Weaknesses

negative (21) about feasibility in implementation, (“It is too conceptual and

difficult to materialize”)


Key ideas

o key ideas of Entry C (81)

o positive (46) about “Natural ecology” (“My favourite idea is people

trying to connect to another nature and bring alertness to the public of

dangerous global warming”)

o positive (29) about “Healthy city” (“Hongkong needs such a place for

nature and health”).

Entry D

Positive

positive (51) about sustainability and green design (“Entry D is unique and can

reduce the energy consumption in Hong Kong”)

positive (21) about place-making strategies (“It turns Hong Kong from a

cultural desert to a lively place”)

positive (20) about architecture (“I choose the Dragon park as a practical

solution, with strong identity, modern appearance”).

Mixed

urban planning and design

o positive (44)

creates diversity (24) (“Entry D is special as it includes diverse

cultures”)

o negative (38)

too commercial (24) (“Too commercial and it looks like Macau

somehow”)

innovation and creativity

o positive (42) (“I like D because the design is innovative”)

o negative (25) (“The design of "Dragon Park" is overused and lacks

creativity”).

Weaknesses

negative (23) about originality and identity in place-making (“dull and lacks

any kind of identity”)


Key ideas

o key ideas of Entry D (39)

o positive (19) comments about “Meaningfully engage local culture”

(“Tourists would have an enriching experience of the culture on Hong

Kong”)

Combined:

combining ideas of specific entries (72) (“If the ideas of entry B and C can mix

together, with local culture from entry A, it will be the best of all worlds”).


4.2.6 Public Engagement

the public engagement (694)

o the questionnaire (366)

positive (213)

the questionnaire is well-designed in general (175) (“A

fine questionnaire, well designed!”)

negative (121)

the questionnaire was too short (33) (“The questionnaire

is too short”)

neutral (32) (“The questionnaire can be printed in black and

white so that it is more environmental friendly”)

o promotion (100)

neutral (60)

more promotion in general (46) (“More promotion can

be done”)

negative (40) (“It is a pity that your organization did not list

this public consultation in the government website”)

o the events (88)

positive (13)

negative (36) (“There is not enough information to study the

individual designs”)

neutral (39) (“More details about the feasibility can be

provided”)

o stakeholders (84)

positive (34) about good public involvement (“Very good,

many people can think together”)

neutral (44) (“The opinions from different people in the society

can be considered”)

4.2.7 Competition

the competition (242)

o positive (183)

that it was meaningful/well-done (166) (“very meaningful to set

up this competition for Kai Tak”)

o negative (35) (“The quality of the entries is very poor”)


4.2.8 Overall

It can be seen from the above summary that the qualitative feedback is quite diverse,

with a wide range of issues highlighted as important in the assessment criteria and

technical considerations. There was positive and negative feedback about all the

entries highlighting their respective strengths and weaknesses and there is no entry

that is supported the most on all criteria. Feedback on the competition was overall

positive with concerns primarily about the entries rather than the competition process.


Annex A Feedback Questionnaire


Annex B Public View Analytical Framework

Table A Comment-based Nodes

A.2. Comments on What the Jury Should Consider (if not commenting on specific entries)

A.2.1. Criteria in Assessment Guideline

A.2.1.1. A) Branding and Image

A.2.1.1.1. The design should be iconic or includes iconic structure

A.2.1.1.2. The design should promote the brand and image of Hong Kong

A.2.1.1.3. The design should be able to draw people's attention

A.2.1.2. B) Innovation and Creativity

A.2.1.2.1 The design should be innovative and creative

A.2.1.3. C) Originality and Identity in place making

A.2.1.3.1. The design should make Kai Tak a place with originality and identity

A.2.1.4. D) Harmonize and Synergize with the Neighbourhood

A.2.1.4.1. The design should integrate into and connect to the neigbourhood to achieve

harmonization

A.2.1.4.2. The design should create synergy effect in the area development

A.2.1.5. E) Sustainability and Green Design (including Safety and Health Life Style)

A.2.1.5.1. The design should be green and sustainable

A.2.1.5.2. The design should address the water quality problem

A.2.1.5.3. The design should cope with other safety issues

A.2.1.5.3.1 The design should consider the effect of weather on green and safety design

A.2.1.5.3.2 The design should cope with other safety issues

A.2.1.5.4. The design should promote healthy life style

A.2.1.5.5. The design should propose an adequate sewage and waste management design

A.2.1.6. F) Feasibility in implementation

A.2.1.6.1 The design should be feasible and implementable

A.2.1.6.2. The design should be practical

A.2.1.6.3. The design should consider the maintenance issues

A.2.1.7. G) Cost Effectiveness

A.2.1.7.1. The Jury should consider the cost-effectiveness of the design (e.g. construction and

maintenance costs)

A.2.1.8. H) Response to design requirement

A.2.2. Technical Aspects and Design Considerations

A.2.2.01. Urban Planning and Design


A.2.2.1.01. The Jury should consider urban planning, design and use of space

A.2.2.1.02. The design should have less commercial development

A.2.2.1.03. The design should include space for sports, leisure and relaxation

A.2.2.1.04. The design should include more public space

A.2.2.1.05. The design should consider diversity

A.2.2.1.06. The design should include places for arts development

A.2.2.1.07. The design should consider the capacities to handle a large amount of visitors

A.2.2.1.08. The design should include places for commercial development

A.2.2.1.09. The design should consider density of buildings

A.2.2.1.10. The design should include places for residential development

A.2.2.1.11. The design should include places for communal facilities and activities

A.2.2.1.12. The design should have less green zone

A.2.2.1.13. The design should include adequate sanitary facilities

A.2.2.1.14. The design should include adequate medical facilities

A.2.2.1.15. The design should focus on a specific theme

A.2.2.1.16. The design should include enough parking area

A.2.2.1.17. The design should consider adequate signage system

A.2.2.1.18. Other comments concerning urban planning and design

A.2.2.02. Architecture

A.2.2.2.1. The Jury should consider the architecture aspect of the design in general

A.2.2.2.2. The forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character of the architectural

design should be considered

A.2.2.2.3. The function and use of space of the architectural design should be considered

A.2.2.2.4. The feasibility of the architectural design should be considered

A.2.2.2.5. The building materials used in the architectural design should be considered

A.2.2.2.6. The effect of weather to the architecture should be considered

A.2.2.03. Place-making Strategies

A.2.2.3.1. The design should propose an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors

A.2.2.3.2. The design should have a right combination of commercial activities for drawing

visitors

A.2.2.3.3. Other comments on place-making strategies

A.2.2.04. Connectivity

A.2.2.4.1. The design should consider the connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general

A.2.2.4.2. The design should include cycle track

A.2.2.4.2. The design should consider pedestrian access

A.2.2.4.3. Considerations Towards EFLS (monorail)

A.2.2.4.3.1. The design should include monorail

A.2.2.4.3.2. The design should not rely on light rail for transport

A.2.2.4.3.3. The design should not include light rail

A.2.2.4.3.4. Other comments towards light rail

A.2.2.4.4. The design should consider land transport connection

A.2.2.4.5. The design should consider water transport connection

A.2.2.4.6. The design should consider connection to current mass transit systems


A.2.2.05. Showcase of Local Culture and Heritage

A.2.2.5.1. Display of the culture and heritage of the city

A.2.2.5.2. Display of old Kai Tak airport heritage

A.2.2.06. Landscape Architecture

A.2.2.6.1. The Jury should consider the landscape architecture of the design in general

A.2.2.6.2. Right types of landscaping plants should be used

A.2.2.6.3. The effect of weather on landscape architecture should be considered

A.2.2.6.4. The landscape design should include a larger area of plantation zone

A.2.2.6.5. The landscape design should include a right theme

A.2.2.07. Engineering

A.2.2.7.1. The Jury should consider engineering issues of the design in general

A.2.2.7.2. The pollution made to the surrounding environment during the construction should be

considered

A.2.2.7.3. The effect of weather on engineering should be considered

A.2.2.7.4. The construction should not affect the existing underground utilities (e.g. dung

channel)

A.2.2.7.5. Other engineering issues

A.2.2.08. Providing Suitable Water-based Activities in the Water Body

A.2.2.8.1. Facilities for water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.) should be provided

in the water body

A.2.2.8.2. Facilities and moorings for recreational boating should be provided in the water body

A.2.2.8.3. The design should propose suitable water-based activities in general

A.2.2.8.4. Other comments on providing suitable water-based activities

A.2.2.8.5. The water body should not be used for moorings of large boats

A.2.2.09. Flexible Design

A.2.2.9.1. The design should be flexible for holding urban city events or future use

A.2.2.10. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and Reclamation issues

A.2.2.10.1. No reclamation in the KTF site OR the PHO should be observed

A.2.2.10.2. More reclamation can be considered

A.2.2.10.3. The scale of reclamation should be concerned

A.2.2.11. Construction Phasing Plan

A.2.2.11.1. The timeframe of construction should be considered

A.2.2.11.1. Proper phasing of construction should be considered

A.2.2.12. Surveying

A.2.2.12.1. The Jury should consider survey aspect in general

A.2.2.12.2. The floor area being used should be considered

A.2.2.13. Water Body Functioning as Typhoon Shelter

A.2.2.13.1. The water body should retain the function as typhoon shelter (for working or

recreational boats)

A.2.2.13.2. Height for monorail bridge should be large enough for boat passing


A.2.2.14. Water-land Interface

A.2.2.14.1. The design should include adequate water-land interface

A.2.2.15. Unobstructed Views to the Surrounding Areas

A.2.2.15.1. The views to the surrounding areas should not be obstructed

A.2.3. Specific Area Within Kai Tak Fantasy

A.2.3.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip

A.2.3.1.1. As a whole

A.2.3.1.2. Tourism Node

A.2.3.1.3. Runway Park

A.2.3.1.4. Heliport

A.2.3.1.5. Runway waterfront promenade

A.2.3.2. Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area


A.2.3.2.2. Three existing piers

A.2.3.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody)


A.2.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter

A.2.3.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel

A.2.4. Other Miscellaneous Comments

A.2.4.01. The design should meet the needs of people

A.2.4.02. The design should look good

A.2.4.03. The design should consider all aspects

A.2.4.04. The design should facilitate economic development

A.2.4.05. The ideas of different entries can be combined

A.2.4.06. The design should facilitate tourism

A.2.4.07. The design should look modern

A.2.4.08. The Jury should consider example of waterfront development in other cities

A.2.4.09. The design should improve people's life

A.2.4.10. The design should be interactive

A.2.4.11. The design should bring vibrancy

A.2.4.12. The design should consider the influence to neigbourhood during construction

A.2.4.13. The design can refer to similar projects in other cities

A.2.4.14. The design should consider number of people who will use the facilities

A.2.4.15. The design should not target mainlanders

A.2.4.16. The design should consider programming design

A.2.4.17. The design should consider population issues

A.2.4.18. The design should be systematic

A.2.4.19. The design should be user-friendly

A.2.4.20. Whether the design resemble other existing designs

A.2.4.21. The design should comply with relevant ordinances and requirements


A.3. Comments on Individual Entries (specified by C.1)

A.3.1. Criteria in Assessment Guideline

A.3.1.1. A) Branding and Image

A.3.1.1.1. Positive Comments

A.3.1.1.1.1. The design is iconic or includes iconic structure

A.3.1.1.1.2. The design promotes the brand and image of Hong Kong

A.3.1.1.1.3. The design draws people's attention

A.3.1.1.2. Negative Comments

A.3.1.1.2.1. The design is not iconic and does not include any iconic structure

A.3.1.1.2.2. The design cannot promotes the brand and image of Hong Kong

A.3.1.1.2.3. The design doesn't draw people's attention

A.3.1.1.3. Neutral Comments

A.3.1.2. B) Innovation and Creativity


A.3.1.2.1.1. The design is innovative and creative


A.3.1.3.2.1. The design is neither innovative nor creative


A.3.1.3. C) Originality and Identity in place making


A.3.1.3.1.1. The design makes Kai Tak a place with originality and identity


A.3.1.3.2.1. The design does not make Kai Tak a place with originality and identity


A.3.1.4. D) Harmonize and Synergize with the Neighbourhood


A.3.1.4.1.1. The design integrates into and connects to the neigbourhood to achieve harmonization

A.3.1.4.1.2. The design creates synergy effect in the area development


A.3.1.4.2.1. The design neither integrates into nor connects to the neigbourhood to achieve

harmonization

A.3.1.4.2.2. The design does not create synergy effect in the area development



A.3.1.4.3.1. The design may consider more on integration and connection to the neigbourhood to achieve

harmonization

A.3.1.4.3.2. The design may consider more on creating synergy effect in the area development

A.3.1.5. E) Sustainability and Green Design (including Safety and Health Life Style)


A.3.1.5.1.1. The design is green and sustainable

A.3.1.5.1.2. The design promotes healthy life style

A.3.1.5.1.3. The design addresses the water quality problem

A.3.1.5.1.4. The design can cope with safety issues

A.3.1.5.1.4.1. The design has considered the effect of weather on green and safety design

A.3.1.5.1.4.2. The design can cope with other safety issues


A.3.1.5.2.1. The design is not green and sustainable

A.3.1.5.2.2. The design does not promote healthy life style

A.3.1.5.2.3. The design does not address the water quality problem

A.3.1.5.2.4. The design lacks consideration on safety issues

A.3.1.5.2.4.1. The design did not consider the effect of weather on green and safety design

A.3.1.5.2.4.2. The design lacks consideration on safety issues


A.3.1.5.3.1. The design may consider more on safety issues

A.3.1.5.3.1.1. The design may need to consider the effect of weather on green and safety

design

A.3.1.5.3.1.2. The design may consider more on other safety issues

A.3.1.5.3.2. The design may consider more green and sustainable design

A.3.1.5.3.3. The design may consider more on the water quality problem

A.3.1.5.3.4. The design may consider an adequate sewage and waste management design

A.3.1.5.3.5. Other neutral comments concerning sustainability and green design

A.3.1.6. F) Feasibility in implementation


A.3.1.6.1.1. The design is feasible and implementable

A.3.1.6.1.2. The design is practical

A.3.1.6.1.3. The design requires less maintenance


A.3.1.6.2.1. The design is not feasible and implementable

A.3.1.6.2.2. The design is not practical

A.3.1.6.2.3. The design is difficult in maintenance



A.3.1.6.3.1. The design may consider more on feasibility in implementation

A.3.1.6.3.2. The design may consider more on maintenance issues

A.3.1.6.3.3. The design may consider more on practicality

A.3.1.7. G) Cost Effectiveness


A.3.1.7.1.1. The design is cost-effective


A.3.1.7.2.1. The design is not cost-effective


A.3.1.7.3.1. The design may consider more on cost-effectiveness

A.3.1.8. H) Response to design requirement


A.3.1.8.1.1. The design meets the design requirements


A.3.1.8.2.1. The design does not meet the design requirements


A.3.2. Technical Aspects and Design Considerations

A.3.2.01. Urban Planning and Design


A.3.2.1.1.01. The design includes adequate places for sports, leisure and relaxation activities

A.3.2.1.1.02. The design includes adequate public space

A.3.2.1.1.03. The design creates diversity

A.3.2.1.1.04. The design shows good urban planning, design and good use of space in general

A.3.2.1.1.05. The design includes adequate places for commercial development

A.3.2.1.1.06. The design includes adequate places for arts development

A.3.2.1.1.07. The design is less commercial

A.3.2.1.1.08. The design has enough capacities to handle large amount of visitors

A.3.2.1.1.09. The design is not loosely organized

A.3.2.1.1.10. The design does not include too much green zone

A.3.2.1.1.11. The design is not too diversified and has adequate focus

A.3.2.1.1.12. The design does not lack residential development

A.3.2.1.1.13. Other positive comments on urban planning and design



A.3.2.1.2.01. The design lacks places for sports, leisure and relaxation activities

A.3.2.1.2.02. The design lacks enough public space

A.3.2.1.2.03. The design lacks diversity

A.3.2.1.2.04. The design lacks good urban planning, design and good use of space in general

A.3.2.1.2.05. The design lacks enough places for commercial development

A.3.2.1.2.06. The design lacks enough places for arts development

A.3.2.1.2.07. The design is too commercial

A.3.2.1.2.08. The design does not have enough capacities to handle large amount of visitors

A.3.2.1.2.09. The design is loosely organized

A.3.2.1.2.10. The design includes too much green zone

A.3.2.1.2.11. The design is too diversified and lacks of focus

A.3.2.1.2.12. The design lacks residential development

A.3.2.1.2.13. Other negative comments on urban planning and design


A.3.2.1.3.1. The design may include more commercial elements

A.3.2.1.3.2. The design may include more sports, leisure and relaxation facilities

A.3.2.1.3.3. The design may need to consider the capacities to handle large amount of visitors

A.3.2.1.3.4. Other neutral comments on urban planning and design

A.3.2.02. Architecture


A.3.2.2.1.1. The architectural design is good in forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and

character

A.3.2.2.1.2. The architectural design is good in terms of functionality and use of space

A.3.2.2.1.3. The architectural design is good in terms of the building materials used


A.3.2.2.2.1. The architectural design is not good in forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and

character

A.3.2.2.2.2. The architectural design is not good in terms of functionality and use of space

A.3.2.2.2.3. The architectural design is not good in terms of the building materials used


A.3.2.2.3.1. The forms of appearance, atmospheric perspective and character of the architectural design

may need more concerns

A.3.2.2.3.2. The functionality and use of space of the architectural design may need more concerns

A.3.2.2.3.3. The building materials used in the architectural design may need more concerns

A.3.2.03. Place-making Strategies


A.3.2.3.1.1. The design proposes an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors

A.3.2.3.1.2. The design includes a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors



A.3.2.3.2.1. The design lacks an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors

A.3.2.3.2.2. The design lacks a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors


A.3.2.3.3.1. The design may need an adequate theme, events and facilities to attract visitors

A.3.2.3.3.2. The design may include a right combination of commercial activities to draw visitors

A.3.2.04. Connectivity


A.3.2.4.1.1. The design has adequate connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general

A.3.2.4.1.2. It is good to include cycle track in the design

A.3.2.4.1.3. It is good to include EFLS (monorail) in the design

A.3.2.4.1.4. The design has adequate pedestrian access

A.3.2.4.1.5. The design has adequate land transport connection

A.3.2.4.1.6. The design has adequate water transport connection

A.3.2.4.1.7. The design has adequate connection to current mass transit system


A.3.2.4.2.1. The design does not have adequate connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general

A.3.2.4.2.2. It is not good to include cycle track in the design

A.3.2.4.2.3. It is not good to include EFLS (monorail) in the design

A.3.2.4.2.4. The design does not have adequate pedestrian access

A.3.2.4.2.5. The design does not have adequate land transport connection

A.3.2.4.2.6. The design does not have adequate water transport connection

A.3.2.4.2.7. The design does not have adequate connection to current mass transit system


A.3.2.4.3.1. The design may consider more on the connectivity, traffic and accessibility in general

A.3.2.4.3.2. The design may consider inclusion of a cycle track

A.3.2.4.3.3. The design may consider inclusion of EFLS (monorail)

A.3.2.4.3.4. The design may consider more on pedestrian access

A.3.2.4.3.5. The design may consider more adequate land transport connection

A.3.2.4.3.6. The design may consider more on water transport connection

A.3.2.05. Showcase of Local Culture and Heritage


A.3.2.5.1.1. The design displays the culture and heritage of the city

A.3.2.5.1.2. The design displays the old Kai Tak airport heritage


A.3.2.5.2.1. The design does not display the culture and heritage of the city

A.3.2.5.2.2. The design does not display the old Kai Tak airport heritage



A.3.2.5.3.1. The design may display more the culture and heritage of the city

A.3.2.5.3.2. The design may display more the old Kai Tak airport heritage

A.3.2.06. Landscape Architecture


A.3.2.6.1.1. The landscape architecture of the design is good in general


A.3.2.6.2.1. The landscape architecture of the design is not good in general


A.3.2.6.3.1. The design may consider more on landscape architecture

A.3.2.07. Engineering


A.3.2.7.1.1. The design does not have engineering issues


A.3.2.7.2.1. The design has engineering issues


A.3.2.7.3.1. The design may need to consider more in engineering aspect

A.3.2.08. Providing Suitable Water-based Activities in the Water Body


A.3.2.8.1.1. The design proposes suitable water-based activities in general

A.3.2.8.1.2. The design proposes adequate water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.)


A.3.2.8.2.1. The design does not propose suitable water-based activities in general

A.3.2.8.2.2. The design does not propose adequate water sports (e.g. dragon boat, rowing, canoeing etc.)


A.3.2.8.3.1. The design may propose more suitable water-based activities in general

A.3.2.09. Flexible Design


A.3.2.9.1.1. The design is flexible for holding urban city event or future use



A.3.2.9.2.1. The design is not flexible for holding urban city event or future use


A.3.2.10. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance OR Reclamation issues


A.3.2.10.1.1. The design does not require reclamation and observe the PHO


A.3.2.10.2.1. The design requires reclamation or does not observe the PHO


A.3.2.10.3.1. The design may require reclamation and may not comply with the PHO

A.3.2.11. Construction Phasing Plan




A.3.2.12. Surveying


A.3.2.12.1.1. The ratio of land being used is adequate


A.3.2.12.2.1. The ratio of land being used is too low


A.3.2.13. Water Body Functioning as Typhoon Shelter


A.3.2.13.1.1. The design retain the function of typhoon shelter

A.3.2.13.1.2. The headroom of the monorail bridge is tall enough for ship passage


A.3.2.13.2.1. The design block the use of the typhoon shelter

A.3.2.13.2.2. The headroom of the monorail bridge is not tall enough for ship passage


A.3.2.13.3.1. The design may consider retaining the use of the typhoon shelter


A.3.2.14. Water-land Interface


A.3.2.14.1.1. The design includes adequate water-land interface


A.3.2.14.2.1. The design does not include adequate water-land interface


A.3.2.15. Unobstructed Views to the Surrounding Areas


A.3.2.15.1.1. The design does not obstruct the views to the surrounding


A.3.2.15.2.1. The design obstructs the views to the surrounding


A.3.3. Regarding Specific Area Mentioned by Respondents

A.3.3.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip


A.3.3.1.1.1. Positive Comments

A.3.3.1.1.2. Negative Comments

A.3.3.1.1.3. Neutral Comments

A.3.3.1.2. Tourism Node




A.3.3.1.3. Runway Park




A.3.3.1.4. Heliport




A.3.3.1.5. Runway waterfront promenade





A.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area





A.3.3.2.2. Three existing piers




A.3.3.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody)





A.3.3.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter




A.3.3.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel




A.3.4. Other Miscellaneous Comments

A.3.4.1. Positive Comments

A.3.4.1.01. The design looks good

A.3.4.1.02. The design looks modern

A.3.4.1.03. The design meets people's needs

A.3.4.1.04. The design does not look too exaggerating

A.3.4.1.05. The design brings vibrancy

A.3.4.1.06. The design looks serious

A.3.4.1.07. The design facilitates economic development

A.3.4.1.08. The design has considered all aspects

A.3.4.1.09. The design improves life quality of people

A.3.4.1.10. The theme name of the design is good

A.3.4.2.11. The design does not look too upscale


A.3.4.2. Negative Comments

A.3.4.2.01. The design does not look good

A.3.4.2.02. The design looks old-fashioned

A.3.4.2.03. The design does not meet people's needs

A.3.4.2.04. The design looks too exaggerating

A.3.4.2.05. The design looks too plain

A.3.4.2.06. The design looks not serious

A.3.4.2.07. The design does not facilitate economic development

A.3.4.2.08. The design does not consider all aspects

A.3.4.2.09. The design does not improve life quality of people

A.3.4.2.10. The theme name of the design is not good

A.3.4.2.11. The design looks too upscale

A.3.4.3. Neutral Comments

A.3.4.3.1. The ideas of specific entries can be combined

A.3.4.3.2. The design resembles specific existing designs

A.3.4.3.3. The design is in American style

A.4. Comments on the Key Ideas of Individual Entries

A.4.1. Entry A

A.4.1.1. Seamless modern and tradition integration




A.4.1.2. Easy configuration with modular systems




A.4.1.3. Cost-effective and practical construction




A.4.2. Entry B

A.4.2.1. Eco-Terrace Regenerates the Environment




A.4.2.2. Reconnect to the Mother Nature





A.4.2.3. Formula E Evolves the Future




A.4.3. Entry C

A.4.3.1. Diverse enterprises




A.4.3.2. Natural ecology




A.4.3.3. Healthy city




A.4.4. Entry D

A.4.4.1. A Constantly evolving Flexible Space




A.4.4.2. Meaningfully Engage local authentic Culture




A.4.4.3. Experience and reconnect with nature




A.5. Respondents' Own Specific Ideas on Place-making OR What Should be Built at KTF

A.5.1. Kai Tak Runway Tip

A.5.1.1. As a whole

A.5.1.2. Tourism Node

A.5.1.3. Runway Park

A.5.1.4. Runway Waterfront Promenade

A.5.1.5. Heliport


A.5.2. Kwun Tong Ferry Pier Action Area

A.5.2.1. As a whole

A.5.2.2. Three existing piers

A.5.3. Enclosed waterbody between Kwun Tong waterfront and Runway (the Waterbody)

A.5.3.1. As a whole

A.5.3.2. Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter

A.5.3.3. Portion of Kai Tak Approach Channel

A.5.4. Unspecified Area in KTF

A.6. Macro Issues

A.6.1. Urban Planning of Hong Kong

A.6.2. Urban Planning of KTF's Surrounding Areas

A.6.3. Hong Kong's Cultural and Policies or Strategies

A.7. Ideas Competition and Public Engagement

A.7.1. Ideas Competition

A.7.1.1. Competition Arrangement


A.7.1.1.1.1. The competition is meaningful and well-done

A.7.1.1.1.2. The competition includes qualified designs

A.7.1.1.1.3. The competition allows people to know more about KTF

A.7.1.1.1.4. The requirements of the competition is not too rigid

A.7.1.1.1.5. The competition includes enough entries


A.7.1.1.2.1. The competition is not well-organized

A.7.1.1.2.2. The competition does not include qualified entries

A.7.1.1.2.3. The competition does not allow people to know more about KTF

A.7.1.1.2.4. The requirements of the competition is too rigid

A.7.1.1.2.5. The competition includes too few entries


A.7.1.1.3.01. The design of the winner of the competition should be adopted for actual development

A.7.1.1.3.02. The competition should be fair

A.7.1.1.3.03. The public should be allowed to vote for their favorite entry

A.7.1.1.3.04. Other outstanding entries in the first round competition should be make public

A.7.1.1.3.05. The public should be allowed to set assessment criteria

A.7.1.1.3.06. The assessment criteria should be publicized

A.7.1.1.3.07. The competition should give more opportunities to local people

A.7.1.1.3.08. The competition should have proper assessment criteria

A.7.1.1.3.09. The competition should provide incentives

A.7.1.1.3.10. The entries should show different styles


A.7.1.2. Competition Documents




A.7.1.2.3.1. Chinese version of competition document should be available

A.7.2. The Public Engagement

A.7.2.1. Questionnaire


A.7.2.2.1.01. The questionnaire is well-designed in general

A.7.2.2.1.02. The questions are comprehensive

A.7.2.2.1.03. The questions are easy to follow

A.7.2.2.1.04. The layout is good

A.7.2.2.1.05. There are enough options to choose

A.7.2.2.1.06. The questionnaire is not too short

A.7.2.2.1.07. The questionnaire is not too long

A.7.2.2.1.08. The questions are not too complicated

A.7.2.2.1.09. The questionnaire have enough blank space to write down opinions

A.7.2.2.1.10. The font size is not too small

A.7.2.2.1.11. It is not easy to manipulate the survey results

A.7.2.2.1.12. The entries are listed in a random order and it is good

A.7.2.2.1.13. The questions are not misleading

A.7.2.2.2.14. The size of the image of entries is not too small


A.7.2.2.2.01. The questionnaire is poorly designed in general

A.7.2.2.2.02. The questions are not comprehensive

A.7.2.2.2.03. The questions are difficult to follow

A.7.2.2.2.04. The layout of the questionnaire is poor

A.7.2.2.2.05. The questionnaire does not have enough options

A.7.2.2.2.06. The questionnaire is too short

A.7.2.2.2.07. The questionnaire is too long

A.7.2.2.2.08. The questions are too complicated

A.7.2.2.2.09. The questionnaire does not have enough blank space to write down opinions

A.7.2.2.2.10. The font size is too small

A.7.2.2.2.11. It is easy to manipulate the survey results

A.7.2.2.2.12. The entries are listed in a random order and it is confusing

A.7.2.2.2.13. The questions are misleading

A.7.2.2.2.14. The size of the image of entries is too small


A.7.2.2.3.1. More instruction and description can be added in the questionnaire

A.7.2.2.3.2. The questionnaire can be printed in black and white

A.7.2.2.3.3. The questionnaire design is fairly good

A.7.2.2.3.4. The questionnaire can be printed in color

A.7.2.2.3.5. Electronic questionnaire can be provided

A.7.2.2.3.6. The questionnaire can include questions asking for priority for the entries

A.7.2.2.3.7. It is not necessary to have images in the questionnaire

A.7.2.2.3.8. A separate questionnaire for professionals can be provided


A.7.2.2. Events and Roving Exhibitions


A.7.2.2.1.1. The event or exhibition is informative

A.7.2.2.1.2. The event or roving exhibition is generally well-organized

A.7.2.2.1.3. The graphics on the display board are realistic

A.7.2.2.1.4. The information shown in the exhibition is easy to understand

A.7.2.2.1.5. The location of the roving exhibition is good

A.7.2.2.1.6 The size of fonts on the display board is adequate


A.7.2.2.2.1. The event or exhibition is not informative enough

A.7.2.2.2.2. The event or roving exhibition is not generally well-organized

A.7.2.2.2.3. The graphics on the display board are not realistic

A.7.2.2.2.4. The information shown in the exhibition is difficult to understand

A.7.2.2.2.5. The location of the roving exhibition is not good

A.7.2.2.2.6 The size of fonts on the display board is too small


A.7.2.2.3.1. More information can be mentioned in the event or exhibition

A.7.2.2.3.2. Physical models of the designs can be displayed in the roving exhibitions

A.7.2.2.3.3. Videos can be shown in the roving exhibitions

A.7.2.2.3.4. The roving exhibitions can be held in more locations

A.7.2.2.3.5. More explanation from the promoters can be provided

A.7.2.2.3.6. The display board in the roving exhibition can be bigger

A.7.2.2.3.7. More topics on urban planning can be included in the roving exhibition

A.7.2.3. Video


A.7.2.3.1.1. The videos are of good quality

A.7.2.3.1.2. The videos explain the ideas of the entries clearly

A.7.2.3.1.3. The length of the videos is adequate


A.7.2.3.2.1. The videos are of bad quality

A.7.2.3.2.2. The videos do not explain the ideas of the entries clearly

A.7.2.3.2.3. The length of the videos is too long


A.7.2.3.3.1. The videos can be embedded in the online questionnaire

A.7.2.3.3.2. The competitors can involve more in making the videos

A.7.2.3.3.3. A short introduction can be added to the videos

A.7.2.3.3.4. The language used for narration differs from one video to another video


A.7.2.4. Website


A.7.2.4.1.1. The size of the images and text on the website is adequate

A.7.2.4.1.2. It is easy to review and compare the entries on the website

A.7.2.4.1.3. It does not require too long to load the images on the web pages


A.7.2.4.2.1. The size of the images and text on the website is too small to read

A.7.2.4.2.2. It is not easy to review and compare the entries on the website

A.7.2.4.2.3. It takes too long to load the images


A.7.2.4.3.1. Users should be allowed to choose the entry they would like to view on the website

A.7.2.4.3.2. More text description about the entries can be provided

A.7.2.5. Promotion Approach


A.7.2.5.1.1. The public engagement process has proper promotion


A.7.2.5.2.1. The public engagement process lacks of adequate promotion


A.7.2.5.3.1. More promotion can be done in general

A.7.2.5.3.2. More promotion can be done on mass media (e.g. TV, newspapers)

A.7.2.5.3.3. More promotion can be done on the Internet

A.7.2.5.3.4. More promotion can be done through mobile apps

A.7.2.6. Effectiveness




A.7.2.7. Stakeholders


A.7.2.7.1.1. The public are well involved


A.7.2.7.2.2. The public are not well involved



A.7.2.7.3.1. The public can be involved more in the PE

A.7.2.7.3.2. The professionals can be involved more in the PE

A.7.2.7.3.3. The residents living in the surrounding area can be involved more in the PE

A.7.2.7.3.4. The young people can be involved more in the PE

A.7.2.7.3.5. Tourists can be involved more in the PE

A.7.2.8. Other Views on Public Engagement Exercise


A.7.2.8.1.1. The public engagement process is generally well organized


A.7.2.8.2.1. The public engagement is meaningless


A.7.2.8.3.1. More public engagement activities can be held

A.7.2.8.3.2. The opinions collected through the PE should be considered carefully

A.7.2.8.3.3. Souvenirs should be given to the participants of the PE

A.8. Other Miscellaneous Issues

A.8.1. KTF's Management Issues

A.8.1.1. Management and Operation

A.8.1.2. Strategic Positioning of KTF

A.8.1.2.1. Target users of KTF should not be tourists only

A.8.1.2.2. The current positioning of KTF is inadequate

A.8.1.2.3. Target users of KTF should include tourists

A.8.1.2.4. The positioning of KTF should not overlap with the WKCD

A.8.1.2.5. The whole Kai Tak approach channel should be included in the KTF project

A.8.2. Any Other Opinions (which cannot be categorised)

Table C Node Classification

C.1. Entries

C.1.1. Entry A - WATERLAND, WONDERLAND!

C.1.2. Entry B - The Rising Landscape

C.1.3. Entry C - Kai Tak 2.0 Healthy Lift Off

C.1.4. Entry D - Dragon Park