Paulo Barbosa
I’m not a big fan of the public consultation concept, at least the way it is done in Macau. It seems that the local obsession with public consultations is linked to a lack of perceived authority to rule. In other words, consultation sessions are a way to try to legitimize the works of a non-democratic system. And there’s an underlying contradiction in the fact that authorities claim that local society is not mature and cultured enough for democracy (a paternalistic view) yet it is knowledgeable enough to have a stance on specialized matters like press law or rules underlying the non-mandatory central provident fund.
Having said this, I think that the final public consultation on the urban planning for the five reclaimed areas is relevant, because the project is crucial for the future of the region. Citizens should go to the ‘Glass House’ building, located in Tap Seac Square, to take a look at the model and computerized images depicting the new plan. They should also read the magazine that is distributed free of charge (with Chinese and Portuguese versions; unfortunately no English version exists) to get a better idea of the plan before they present their opinions (in good faith that those opinions will be taken into consideration… one never knows). The public consultation commenced on June 30 and will run until August 8.
After visiting the Tap Seac exhibition, I must say that I’m disappointed. If this is the future of the city, we are in trouble.
The anonymous plan (Who did it? A collective of DSSOPT technicians?) doesn’t bring forward any new ideas. Sandwiched between Areia Preta district and the island being built to park the vehicles coming from the HK-Macau-Zhuhai bridge, Reclamation Zone A is a massive wall of high-rises where 96,000 people are expected to live in 32,000 residential units that stretch along 138 hectares.
The green spaces are scarce (not even 20% of the total, as stated, since public spaces can’t all be considered green areas) and there is no significantly sized park when, in my opinion, two are needed: one for Zone A and another for Taipa.
Overall, the plan lacks sophistication and doesn’t seem to add quality to the city. It only tries to answer two practical questions: how to accommodate the maximum number of people possible (162,000 in total) and how to facilitate traffic flow (only the most optimistic can believe that the plan presented, based on the assumption that people will mainly use public transportation, will work).
The only good idea I saw was the creation of a green corridor on certain sections of the waterfront. But who wants a waterfront passageway when the background is oppressed by high-rises like the ones planned to be built close to the Macau Tower, obstructing the Nam Van Lake?
It’s important to demonstrate opposition to this plan because it’s not good for the future of Macau. A new one should be designed with the help of international experts. If Hengqin continues to be considered a Zhuhai Free Trade Zone, where Macau residents are no more than guests, then the reclamation zones and Coloane are the region’s last “breathing spaces.” Authorities must make this right.
Belgian architect Jean-Michel Gathy lived in Hong Kong from 1981 to 1992 and recently told the South China Morning Post how disappointed he is with his former home. Talking about Singapore’s waterfront transformation in the Marina Bay area, he said that Hong Kong could have done something similar. “Hong Kong could have done that – developed the harbor front area for biking, running and eating.” Why wasn’t it done? “Hong Kong is built on greed; it’s that simple,” he said, adding that profit has become the primary motive of virtually all urban development.
It’s time to ask if Macau isn’t also built on greed. And, if the answer is yes, is that what the residents want? Maybe the government should do a public consultation to answer that one.
No Comments