Architect says historic texture of the city being usurped

Rui Leão

The need for an urban Master Plan for Macau was the topic of the working lunch the British Business Association of Macao (BBAM) held last week at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. Rui Leão, architect and president of International Council of Architects of the Portuguese Speaking Countries, was invited to speak on several aspects related to Macau’s urban development and organization.

The architect, who is also member of the Macau Urban Planning Committee, noted that there were major differences between the old city and newer areas in terms of scale.

“At the time that the planning law was drafted it was generally based on the Portuguese law [which states that there is a need for a Master Plan before the Detailed Plans]. So at the time, my contribution, which was ultimately unsuccessful, was to try to convince the government to invert that,” said Leão. “We need to have detailed plans in Macau, especially for the old [part] of the city, before we have the Master plan, because we know that the master plan is something that takes [a] very long [time] to be implemented and the Inner Harbor [area] and the older parts of town couldn’t wait.”

According to Leão, what occureed in the late 20th century and early 21st century was an “opportunistic interpretation of an historic city [center] and it created an interesting usurpation of the historic texture of the city.”

In the past, several of the small plots that used to constitute the city center were joined together to allow the creation of high-rise buildings in the center, twisting the original purpose of the spaces and paving the way for large scale investments. The organization left the hands of small property owners and signified a “big game changer” for Macau’s economy.

In this context, the architect questioned how is was possible to reconcile modern Macau with the historical city. His answer to this question includes the creation of a master plan.

“We need to be two [different] people in order to be able to do this master plan. [On one hand] we need to understand the economics and [on the other] we need to understand the humanity and informality of the old city.”

Addressing questions on the protection of heritage sites, Leão compared Macau to Venice, where the tourists agglomerate around the heritage hotspots. But, inversely to what happens in the Italian city, it is the casinos and resorts that hold and attract the attention of tourists in Macau.

He remarked that one of the most important factors regarding the protection of buildings is “visibility,” noting that the best example of that is Senado Square, which “gained a lot from the cleaning of advertising and signage as well as the stopping of the circulation of vehicles in the area – it only survived because of this.”

In order to protect the city center, Leão proposes expanding the pedestrian area from Senado Square in two directions, toward the Inner Harbor and in the axis from Senado Square to Lilau Square. “If this happens I think half of the problems [regarding heritage protection] are solved.”

The speaker noted that what concerns him the most regarding Macau heritage protection has to do with the fact that “everything that is not a monument is not protected and is not listed.” He noted that building clusters in many parts of the city are as much or of more historical relevance than some monuments. Macau’s heritage also includes green areas and Coloane, in Leão’s opinion.

Leão also addressed the organization of the new areas of reclaimed land, where he expressed concerns, saying, “there is no [clear] policy, only hints.”

The architect thinks that now is the right time for the government to address a topic that “was a taboo for over 450 years,” that being the use of the Macau waters, which he claims were never granted before to Macau territory, especially during the Portuguese administration.

The current status is that Macau has the right and duty to manage its maritime areas, and Leão says, “it is time to give the waterfronts back to [the] Macau people.”

Replying to questions regarding the lack of new architectural works of great relevance in Macau, Leão believed this was related to the “new way” of attributing projects.

“Before we had the commissioning of big projects to architects and we had important and relevant works done. Now this has stopped and I’m afraid to say that I see that the best projects now rarely or never win.” He added that more importance is given to other factors that are not related to design and architectural relevance.

Three other Urban Planning Committee members were also present at the talk – namely Paul Tse, Wu Chou Kit (also a lawmaker) and Noris Au, vice president of Macau Urban Planning Association.

Au questioned Leão on the possibility of replacing some protected areas – particularly zones C and D – due to the new developments of territorial land and the possibility of expansion. Alternatively, he raised the possibility of relocating the new landfills to other places.

Leão replied, “I never really thought about that. In fact, when we decided [on] these areas there was no other option so we saw them as [our fate].”

Still, he remarked, “these zones are being planned with incredibly good accessibility and due to the fact that they are islands in between the city and exit infrastructures, they are prime locations.”

Leão affirmed that the best option at the moment is to give the matter some time, as the major needs will be supplied by the infrastructure being built in the near future at zones A and E, which could function as reserve plots.