Post date: Dec 08, 2015 5:40:30 PM
I refer to the report ('Arts hub does not need a forest, say local architects', November 20).
Comments made by certain local architects on design directions ruined what was an otherwise gorgeous Saturday morning for me, with the sun out.
Haven't Hong Kong architects done enough damage already to our culture by giving us a collection of garish commercial towers and unappealing residential boxes built in the 1960s, 1970s and even in the new millennium? Yet they have the audacity to criticise Norman Foster's design for the West Kowloon Cultural District as 'too generic' and lacking 'local and cultural identity'.
While some may agree that a forest is not a perennial requirement for an arts hub, Hong Kong does need more greenery and trees. I don't think anybody in his right mind could argue with that.
So, if the Foster design meets the design requirements, the plan is flexible and the park will appeal to the public, according to the Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design, then clearly his should be the front runner.
As to the comments on Central Park, in New York, I like strolling through it and seeing those beautiful turn-of-the-century examples of architecture hidden shyly behind the tree tops.
Philip Leung, Pok Fu Lam25 November, 2010 http://www.scmp.com/article/731568/letters
Article mentioned: Arts hub does not need a forest, say local architects http://www.scmp.com/article/731028/arts-hub-does-not-need-forest-say-local-architects