Several members of the Urban Planning Committee (CPU) have raised questions relating to an apparent “mood swing” of the binding opinions issued by the Cultural Affairs Bureau (IC) on several projects being discussed at the CPU.
Committee members Lui Chak Keong and Chan Chio I were two of the inquirers on the matter, hinting that the IC has moved, over the last couple of years, from an approach that was considered by some as too conservative and strict to an approach that is now considered to be too lenient.
On behalf of the IC, vice president Deland Leong tried to justify the bureau’s changes of opinion with added research and studies as well as with an attempt from the IC to be more specific with the conditions required for the approval of the urban condition plans (PCU) of certain projects.
“We have had a new review [of the project] and we have acknowledged that sometimes it is difficult to plan if all previous characteristics [of the old buildings] need to be kept unchanged,” Leong said, adding, “This is just a small adjustment that aims at widening the street. We are respecting all the main characteristics of the area.”
Leong’s reply referred to a stone wall that is included as part of a project at Travessa da Palanchica and Pátio de Além-Bosque, near Camões Garden in Macau.
Chan wanted to know why the bureau had previously said that the stone wall must be kept in a previous opinion issued by the IC in 2016, but has deemed it is unnecessary now, asking, “Why is something [that was] important a few years ago now expendable?”
Leong clarified, saying, “The stone wall is not very significant for the city so there is no need to keep it as we do not find any special characteristic [of] it that is worth saving [to warrant] halting the development of that area and the widening of the street.”
The bureau representative had previously said that the IC had never issued an opinion on the wall, but instead on the conditions governing what could be built on the land plot and under which conditions, so that such construction did not change the characteristics and aesthetics of the area.
Similar questions were raised later as part of discussions over another private project, this time related to Pátio do Mungo, located in the Praia do Manduco area.
At that time, Chan, architect Lui Chak Keong and other members of the committee also raised questions about the inconsistencies between the IC’s current opinion and its previous opinions on the same project.
Lui noted that in the PCU issued as part of the IC’s opinion in 2009, it had included the preservation of the façade and the rooftop. However, now there is new writing which reads “preserve the façade and the characteristics of the rooftop.”
In response, Leong said, “We changed the wording from preserving the rooftop to the characteristics of the rooftop because that includes all the wood part and supports. But we have to take into account the modern materials and techniques. This [writing] gives more flexibility for the revitalization of this patio,” adding that such adjustments are natural and come from the new studies and findings about the preservation of old buildings.
Leong concluded by saying that the IC’s bid to produce opinions with better and more detailed writing aims to let the owners of the buildings know exactly what can or should be done to harmonize the characteristics of the revitalization with the preservation of the original aesthetic.
No Comments