URBP6901 VALUES IN PLANNING

Student-Centred Project
Assessment of Public Parks in Hong Kong in the light of
Public Interest and Equal Opportunity

(A Case Study of Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and King George V
Memorial Park, Hong Kong)

Submitted by

Mohammad Aminul Quaium

MUP Year-1, University Number: 3035455395

December 2017
1. Introduction

Good quality parks and open spaces can play a very important role in ensuring mental and
physical health of urban citizens. In a high-density urban environment like Hong Kong, parks
and open spaces are very essential parts of the built environment. A well-planned and well-
designed public open space with a wide range of options and high quality facilities can attract
many people with different types of recreational needs. By catering for needs and welfare of a
diverse group of people, planners can actually serve the public interest very effectively. And
carefully planned and designed public parks and open spaces provide planners with this
opportunity to bring the concept of public interest to action.

Public parks and open spaces allow planners to enforce another higher level value of their
profession – equal opportunity to all. This can be attained by opening up options for those
who have special needs due to their circumstances, such as elderly and disabled people.
Universal accessibility of public places increase their use values and significance as
democratic spaces.

In this paper I have made an attempt to make an assessment of how well public parks and
open spaces in Hong Kong can serve public interest and provide equal opportunity or
universal accessibility. I live in Sai Ying Pun area of Hong Kong Island, and there are two
public parks within 500m radius from my home, namely, Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and
King George V Memorial Park (Hong Kong) (Map-1). I visit these parks on a regular basis.
So from my experience as a regular user and as an observer of how people use these spaces, I
was inspired to work on this theme for my student-centred project.

The study starts with a brief exploration of concepts of public interest and equal opportunity
in the light of existing literature. This is followed by a short introduction of park planning
system in Hong Kong. Then it proceeds to the assessment of two abovementioned parks in
the light of public interest and equal opportunity aspects. Finally the study is supplemented
by some insights from Ms Christina Lo, a planner from Hong Kong and the University of
Hong Kong faculty.

1
 Location of
My Place

Map-1: Location of Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and King George V Memorial Park (Hong
Kong) with respect to my place. (Source: Google maps)

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1 Public Interest

Although the term ‘public interest’ is widely used in planning literature and discourse, the
conceptualization of this is not as simple as it may appear. Often the concept of public
interest is perceived as vague and ambiguous in nature, especially when it comes to the
debate of whose interest to consider and prioritise. Public interest is also sometimes referred
to as common good or general welfare. It is a matter of common sense that planners,
especially planners working in the public realm, should operate in favour of public interest. In
other words, their efforts should be aimed at upholding the collective welfare of the society.
But when it comes to real life action, planners may find themselves in a position struggling to
translate the theme of public interest into implementable plans in a cohesive manner.

2
In an attempt to give an operational meaning to this concept, some welfare economists
indicated that public interest should be derived from the welfare of individuals. That is to say
that public interest of a society should reflect the interests of its individual members.
However, this projection of public interest from all the individual interests of a society arises
questions of how to identify all the individual preferences in the society and how to transform
these into a collective preference. Some scholars argue for formulation of “a set of explicit
value judgments” for the purpose of deriving collective social interest from individual
interests (Brooks, 2002). But there is no clear guideline regarding how to do it and who will
be responsible for such value judgment.

Lewis (2006) indicates to the debate over public interest not only across stakeholders, but
also across time. In her words: “The duty to serve the public interest also requires us to
anticipate the inescapable tensions between current uses and future needs and between private
interests and mutual interests” (Lewis, 2006). She argues that serving the public interest is
basically a process that entails exploration of ‘democracy’ and ‘mutuality’ in the present
times and ‘sustainability’ and ‘legacy’ as future concerns. She visualized the notion of public
interest as a “never-ending process” rather than an “objectively identifiable endpoint” which
has more meaning in practice than as a product; in other words, it is a cult for public
managers to live by.

In search of ontology and diverse implications of the concept of public interest, Alexander
(2002) indicates that though the history of the idea of public interest dates back to classical
times it still has its implications in present days in the fields of public administration, law,
and of course planning. He identified three roles of public interest as far as planning is
concerned. First, it legitimizes planning as a public sector intervention. Second, it has been
accepted by planning profession as a norm of practice. And third, it serves as a criterion for
evaluation of outputs of planning activities.

Alexander (2002) argues that the meaning of public interest as a concept for legitimizing
planning as a public sector activity lies in its having some substantive content. Also its
application in substantive plan evaluation is necessary to retain its status as a norm of
planning practice. However, the major road block on the way of application of substantive
public interest is complexity. In order to avoid this issue of complexity, he proposed a public
interest evaluation criterion that focuses on the residents of the designated plan area as the
most directly impacted parties of the plan. According to him:

3
“A plan that does not enhance, or reduces, the welfare of the residents of the designated
planning area, is not in the public interest, unless the plan or its accompanying documentation
demonstrates compelling public policy considerations in support of its provisions.”
(Alexander, 2002)

However, he acknowledges that the application of such criterion is limited in scope, since it is
suitable only for relatively small-scale, simpler plans. In case of more complex plans or
projects involving diverse interests or conflicting values, he still advocates for dialogic
processes in order to put into force a substantive public interest.

Klosterman (1980) suggested another public interest criterion for evaluating plans and public
policies which he claims as “meaningful, empirically verifiable, and rationally defensible”.
The proposed criterion provides a framework for examination of available information on the
impacts of proposed plans or policies through collection and presentation of data. Thus it
provides a framework for “combining technical analysis with the reasoned discussion of
ethical issues”, and thereby “consider not only a policy’s impacts on themselves and the
groups they represent, but also its anticipated effects on other individuals and on the
collective interests of the community” (Klosterman, 1980).

Besides the never-ending debate on whether public interest really exists or not, and if it exists
then how to identify it, it has until now been an important concept to consider in planning
theory and profession.

2.2 Equal Opportunity

According to Kitchin (1998), space plays an important role in constructing and reinforcing
disability. He argues that spatial organization is an important determinant factor in keeping
disabled people isolated, not only physically but also mentally by giving them an impression
that they are ‘out of place’. He also argues that disability is both spatially and socially
constructed since social relations also reinforce isolation and marginalization of disabled
people. Therefore he urges for the need of understanding the disability through the lens of
political economy of spaces alongwith social constructivism.

Gleeson (2001) gave a brief but insightful account on how planning and design can contribute
to and reinforce the difficulty in accessibility of disabled people. He observes:

4
“Various features of industrial and contemporary cities – including physical design,
institutional policies and mobility systems – have prevented disabled people from
participating in the mainstreams of urban social life in a range of Western countries. The
physical lay-out of cities – including both macro landuse patterns and the internal design of
buildings – puts disabled people at risk of both personal injury and social exclusion by not
accounting for their mobility requirements” (Gleeson, 2001).

He also made an attempt to identify the physical aspects of difficulties encountered by

disabled people in built environment, such as:

(1) physical barriers to movement (such as, ruptured or broken surfaces of pavements) that
affect the effectiveness of mobility aids such as wheelchairs, walking frames;

(2) buildings that restrict the entry of people disabled in using stairs and other features; and

(3) public transport facilities which does not take into consideration the embarking-
disembarking difficulties of some passengers (Gleeson, 2001).

Although many government agencies have enacted planning and building regulations aiming
at promotion of disable accessibility in built environments and transport systems, these
regulations are often poorly enforced due to unwillingness on the part of responsible
authorities in discharging the duties laid out in these regulations (Gleeson, 2001).

Hence care must be taken to include equal opportunity or universal accessibility principles
during the planning and design stages.

3. Planning and Design of Public Parks in Hong Kong

The planning and design of public parks in Hong Kong is dictated by the ‘Hong Kong
planning Standards and Guidelines’ published by the Planning Department of the
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The main aim of this
document is to provide planning and design standards and guidelines to cater for the
recreational needs of Hong Kong people that are “essential to the mental and physical well-
being of the individual and the community as a whole” (Planning Department, 2015). Given
the high-density urban character of Hong Kong, public parks can also facilitate penetration of
sunlight, ventilation, and greening of urban spaces apart from catering for the recreational

5
needs of people. Furthermore, they serve as spaces with aesthetically attractive urban design
virtues.

The process of planning and design of Hong Kong public open spaces, especially of the
public parks is apparently sensitive to the notions of public interest and equal opportunities.
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, hereinafter mentioned as HKPSG, targets
those recreation needs that require spatial allocation and special facilities “to cater for
widespread public demand” (Planning Department, 2015). In other words, HKPSG explicitly
sets out planning and design standards to serve the public interest. HKPSG also
acknowledges the issue of equal opportunity by forming “an equitable basis for the
reservation of land for recreation facilities and open space” (ibid).

Public open spaces in Hong Kong are designated in a hierarchical order. Regional open
spaces consist of a relatively large area (at least 5 ha) and offer greater range of facilities than
the core activities, therefore catering wider choices for territorial population and tourists.
District open spaces are intended to serve for the core active and passive needs of a district
population. Such open spaces usually have medium-size areas which is at least 1 ha where
possible. Local open spaces, on the other hand, are even smaller sites with at least 500m² area
(where possible) in the urban areas. The emphasis is on providing facilities for activities
usually passive in nature (such as sitting arrangements) and children’s play areas aiming to
serve the neighbourhood population. However, if space allows then some active recreation
facilities may be provided (Planning Department, 2015).

The following discussion looks into how equal opportunity or universal accessibility issues
are considered in public park design with special reference to facilities for children, elderly,
and disabled people.

4. Assessment of Public Parks with respect to Public interest and Equal

opportunity

4.1 Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park

Located on the reclaimed harbour front to the north of Sai Ying Pun neighbourhood, Sun Yat
Sen Memorial Park is a District scale open space according to open space hierarchy in Hong
Kong. Accordingly, it has a variety of active and passive recreation facilities, including
indoor sports complex, indoor swimming pool, soccer field, basketball courts, children play

6
area, sitting arrangements, etc. Endowed with pleasant harbor view, the park design has
embodied a sense of meaning in the place by centering its theme on the life and works of Sun
Yat Sen, widely revered as the father of modern China. Scenic view of the harbour and high
quality design has added great value to the place which attracts many people with diverse
needs everyday.

There is a large play area for children in the south part of the park. It is equipped with
different types of play features to cater for the children of different ages.

The park has facilities for elderly people also. There are spaces for Tai Chi, where elderly
people can perform such activities in groups. There are also some installations for being used
by the elderly people for physical exercise. Besides, there are ample sitting facilities where
elderly people can take some rest.

From equal opportunity point of view, this park has amazing design to enable universal
accessibility. There are tactile maps at the entrance points of the park. Tactile tiles were laid
to guide visually impaired people to different parts of the park. There are ramps with gentle
slopes and rails to make the park accessible to people who move on wheel chairs. Even the
promenade area is also designed in a way to make it accessible to all.

Thus the park had been designed to provide equal opportunity of access for all. In my view, it
perfectly illustrates how planners and designers can uphold public interest by providing a
wide range of choice of activities and facilities for a diverse group of users.

Photo-1: Entrance of Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park

7
 Photo-2: City View from Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park

Photo-3: Harbour View from Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park

Photo-4: Children’s Play Area in Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park

8
Photo-5: Elderly physical Exercise Photo-6: Tactile Map in Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park
in Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park

Photo-7: Ramp and Railing in Sun Photo-8: Tactile paving tiles in Sun Yat Sen Memorial
Yat Sen Memorial Park Park

4.2 King George V Memorial Park (Hong Kong)

This is a large local or neighbourhood park situated in Sai Ying Pun at the corner of Eastern
Street and Hospital road. Although built in the colonial times, it is also equipped with a wide
range of active and passive recreation facilities. It also serves as an open breathing place amid
a densely built urban environment. the park has a 7-a-side soccer field, basketball court,
children play area and ample seating arrangements. The park is surrounded by native fruit-

9
bearing plants, such as Chinese Banyan (Ficus microcarpa) which attract many bird species
and therefore adding ecological and aesthetic value to this precious public place.

Photo-9: A view of King George V Memorial Park, Hong Kong

The park has an attractive play area for children with various types of facilities. There are
shaded seating arrangements for parents surrounding the play area. There are also a range of
facilities for elderly people. An open arena for Tai Chi, some exercise instruments, walking
trails, and shaded seating arrangements are designed to cater for the needs of elderly people.
There is also a chess corner in the park where elderly people gather to socialize and play
chess.

Much consideration has been given to equal opportunity and universal accessibility in
designing this park also. Although I did not see any tactile layout map of the park, but there
are tactile tiles laid on walking paths, ramps with railings, disabled persons’ toilet facilities,
and some other facilities that testify the fact that the needs of disabled people had been cared
for.

King George V Memorial Park (Hong Kong) serves as an impressive example of service of
public interest and equal opportunity in a public place of a local scope.

10
 Photo-10: Children’s Play Area in King George V Memorial Park, Hong Kong

Photo-11: Elderly people playing chess in King Photo-12: Railing, tactile tiles, and toilet for
George V Memorial Park disabled in King George V Memorial Park

11
5. Interview with an Urban Planner: Ms Christina Lo

In order to have a deeper understanding of the planning and design process of public parks in
Hong Kong, I interviewed Ms Christina Lo, who is an urban planner based in Hong Kong.
She also teaches currently at the University of Hong Kong. During the interview, we talked
about major considerations in planning and designing public parks in Hong Kong, how well
these parks serve the public interest and suitable mode of planning to improve conditions of
public parks. Here some of the highlights of the interview are discussed.

When asked about how the public parks are planned and managed, Ms Lo mentioned that the
locations of parks are identified in the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) of Hong Kong. During
detailed planning and design stages, standards and guidelines provided in HKPSG are being
followed. She also mentioned that HKPSG has strong emphasis on numerical standards than
on design aspects. She has also explained the hierarchical system of public parks in Hong
Kong.

In this regard I asked her about the quality of public parks in Hong Kong. Ms Lo replied that
creation of high quality public parks is not easy in already densely built-up area of Hong
Kong. This might be possible in some parts of New Development Areas. However, she
emphasized that a framework for improving design, walkability, and location must be in
place. But laying down such framework may also require a considerable time.

I requested Ms Lo to throw some light on how well these parks serve public interest. She
replied that Hong Kong public parks surely serve public interest. However, she observes that
there is a high degree of diversity among the public and hence serving public interest
sometimes needs to be a balancing act. In this respect she mentioned an example from Tsuen
Mun park where, while some people were singing, some people complained against them.
Although there is no restriction on singing in a public park in Hong Kong. So whose interest
will get priority in such a situation. Similar issue arose regarding the skate boarders in Wan
Chai park. Such instances pose dilemma for managers of these public facilities about interest
of which citizen group to prefer.

I asked Ms Lo to give some insight on the preferable mode of planning for public open
spaces in Hong Kong. In her opinion the good model for planning such public facilities might
be a combination of both rational comprehensive planning and community participation. She
informed that the practice of community involvement in planning is a relatively new

12
phenomenon in the planning arena of Hong Kong. The planning culture in Hong Kong is top-
down centralized and there is no formal process of community involvement during the
planning stage. Although Hong Kong is gradually moving towards community planning
direction, the process is very slow. On the other hand, rational comprehensive planning
equips planners with some useful techniques and tools. So, according to Ms Christina Lo, an
amalgam of these two types of planning methods might be best mode of planning for Hong
Kong.

6. Conclusion

As a user of the public parks near my place of living, I am deeply satisfied with the amenities
they provide. Public open spaces, especially parks are very valuable facilities in a community
that serve public interest by catering for active and passive recreation needs of different
groups of people as well as open spaces within densely-knit urban fabric. Both Sun Yat Sen
memorial park and King George V memorial park in Sai Ying Pun bear great values for me
as a user. These parks include useful features for children and elderly people as well as
disabled persons, thereby providing all users equal opportunity to access and use these places.
Moreover, by opening up accessibility for a vast array of users, these parks aptly serve
substantive public interest in any sense of the term.

In terms of suitable mode of planning, I agree with the opinion of planner Ms Christina Lo
that a combination of rational comprehensive planning and community participation might
serve the purpose very well. I believe the utility of rational comprehensive planning is not
over yet. Planners can add greater values to their professional products by ensuring more
involvement of diverse communities and interest groups. Also community’s involvement in
the early stages of planning process will help create plans and places where their needs and
aspirations will be reflected more clearly.

13
References

Alexander, E. R. (2002), “The public interest in planning: from legitimation to substantive

plan evaluation,” Planning Theory, Vol.1, No.3, pp.226-249.
Brooks, M. P. (2002), Planning Theory for Practitioners, Chicago, Ill.: Planners Press,
American Planning Association.
Gleeson, B. (2001), “Disability and the open city,” Urban Studies, Vol.38, No.2, pp.251-265.
Kitchin, R. (1998), “'Out of place', 'knowing one's place': space, power and the exclusion of
disabled people,” Disability & Society, Vol.13, No.3, pp.343-356
Klosterman, R. E. (2001), “A Public Interest Criterion,” Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol.46, No.3, pp.323-333.
Lewis, C. W. (2006), “In pursuit of the public interest,” Public Administration Review,
Vol.66, No.5, pp.694-701.
Planning Department (2015), “Chapter 4: Recreation, Open Space and Greening”, Hong
Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, Planning Department, Government of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Accessed on 10 December 2017 from:
http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch4/pdf/ch4.pdf

14