After dropping the provisional car tire park, the government has decided to build a high-rise building at the former cotton mills in Taipa, a plan that was passed yesterday at the Urban Planning Committee (CPU) despite debates surrounding it.
The plan, which consists of the three plots of land formerly used by the old cotton mills and another plot on the opposite side of the road, attracted 462 opinion pieces, in contrast to the usual couple of opinions garnered for other plans. The Land and Urban Construction Bureau (DSSCU), the executive body that supports the functioning of the CPU, admitted that a majority of these opinions were against the development plan.
Most of these opinions call for the withdrawal of the plan to build residential buildings and to instead build cultural and leisure facilities, such as parks. Other opposing opinions called for decreasing the heights of these buildings, from 90 meters to 60.
Located next to and diagonally opposite the southwestern tip of the Nova Grand residential estate, the high-rise buildings planned will inevitably block the views of certain residents at the estate. The DSSCU disclosed at yesterday’s meeting that “neighboring developments have reached as tall as 150 meters.”
During the discussion, CPU member Leong Pou U first asked about the government’s response to the overwhelming number of opposing opinions.
To this, Mak Tat Io, vice director of the DSSCU, defended the government’s position, citing the Master Urban Plan. Noting that the district is designated for residential use in the Master Urban Plan, the public works official suggested that these plots of land should not be used for leisure facilities.
Mak added that the plots of land are strategically located in the heart of Taipa, in close proximity to a Light Rapid Transit station and Hengqin.
He also said that the working population and the residential population in Taipa are not proportional to each other, meaning that there are more people working than living in Taipa. Referring to data from the past census, he pointed out that Taipa only had a population density slightly surpassing 80,000 per square kilometer, while the Macau Peninsula’s population density was 150,000 per square kilometer.
In further defense of the plan, Mak said that the environment within this district “is relatively comfortable,” adding that land buffers have been reserved for the development’s coverage. The DSSCU has permitted a 100% use of the land with a 10-times maximum plot ratio for the development.
Mak stressed that other plots of land in Taipa will later be allotted for cultural and leisure use in accordance with the Master Urban Plan.
On the sidelines of the meeting, after being quizzed for details on which plots of land to which the vice director was referring, Lai Weng Leong, director of the DSSCU and the chair of the CPU, refrained from making any disclosures but assured that announcements will be made in due course.
Leong later followed up on population density, questioning why the government was not focusing on improving people’s quality of life.
Mak responded by saying that the government will not increase population density in Taipa to the levels seen in Macau.
He then referenced the government’s plan to increase the population to 808,000 by 2040, suggesting that more people should be allocated to Taipa.
Member Sio Chi Weng followed up on the government’s plan in terms of establishing public facilities in the area. Lai recapped Mak’s earlier response and reiterated that such facilities will exist elsewhere in Taipa.
Another member, Chan Chio I, asked about building footbridges, a facility which is included in the plan that will connect the four plots of land. Considering the private nature of the development, Chan wanted to clarify the topic and who would be responsible for the development.
The part of the facility that will be located within the private residential estate will be built by the property developer. In contrast, other parts of the footbridges will rely on investments by the government.
Member Álvaro dos Santos Rodrigues said that the plots of land “have always been appointed for residential use,” although the DSSCU disclosed that three of the four plots of land had never had planning drafts issued.
He told his fellow members that there is still unused land in Taipa that the government can use for leisure. The CPU is a consultative body and technically has no legal rights to veto any planning drafts submitted by the government.
Some other members expressed concerns over future traffic following the conclusion of the development.
