13,000 student vacancies planned for New Urban Zone

Li Canfeng

The government will try to provide positions for 13,000 school students at New Urban Zone A, according to Li Canfeng, director of the Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT), who announced the news yesterday on the sidelines of the Urban Planning Committee meeting.

“Overall, [the government] will try to make available [enough room] to [accommodate] 11,000 school [students],” said Li, adding that additional efforts will be made to provide another 2,000 school vacancies for students.

“The government hopes to do more in terms of providing school vacancies. […] Especially concerning secondary schools, where the education department wishes us to create more vacancies,” Li added.

Yesterday, the Urban Planning Committee discussed the feasibility of two lots on the New Urban Zone being used for education purposes. In addition, another two lots in the same zone will also be used by the education sector.

Together, the four plots will be capable of providing up to 13,000 school vacancies.

The education authority will decide which schools will be granted the positions, and will also be in charge of designing the new facilities.

The committee members also discussed, amid different matters, the plans for the No.1 of R. da Barca.

This property had previously drawn the local community’s attention because a few people hoped that the architecture could be preserved as a cultural relic.

However, the Cultural Affairs Bureau (IC) deemed the building not to be a cultural relic.

Li Canfeng said that the planning of the reconstruction of this building should no longer be postponed because the IC has already disqualified the building’s cultural relic value.

According to the planning, the current reconstruction plans for No.1 of R. da Barca should guarantee that the original architecture is preserved.

One member of the committee voiced their view that the façade of the building should be preserved as well.

However, several other members expressed their opposition to the protection and preservation of the building.

“If looking at the opinions of the public, then the neighborhood indeed really abhors this location. I think there should be a balance between [preserving the architecture] and [reconstructing the architecture] because the neighborhood holds many [negative] opinions. You [the government] either protect it [the building] or not, otherwise the community will grow to be antipathetic,” one member voiced.

“If you look at the environment around the building, you notice how bad it really is.”

Another member, surnamed Leong, said that “it [the planning of the restoration works] can’t be postponed anymore. I don’t have any reasons to protect it. The cultural heritage committee and the IC [have] already said that the [building] is not a cultural relic. Why are we [still] discussing the preservation of the building?”

Another member, surnamed Chan, commented by saying “I don’t know what we should be preserving if the window has already collapsed, […] it is smelly inside.”

The committee will continue discussing the future of the property.