What's needed is fundamental reform of the planning processes that are currently way too top-down and mechanistic, focusing on neatly organising 7 million little dots from the perspective of government departments 'responsible' for their inputs and outputs.
People know what they want, at least when faced with some thoughtful options. To generate plans that make Hong Kong a better place to live, let's have some genuine consultation and involvement by the public and the many non-government organisations (such as Designing Hong Kong, Society for the Protection of the Harbour …, and yes, Hong Kong Outdoors) that are active and already offering imaginative proposals.
Among other things, such an approach would better match how people actually go about their lives (putting cycle tracks between and not just within the accommodation 'nodes' of Tseung Kwan O), draw on international examples (a strong coordinating development body for Victoria Harbour, such as in Sydney or Baltimore), allow more organic development (ie. not the farce of government determining exactly what a Cultural District should consist of), create greater accountability (URA slush fund, anyone?) and force government planning to focus on the strategic interests of Hong Kong people, rather than be constrained by its administrative structure and convenience.
Ill-considered projects, implementation problems and potential conflicts would be identified much earlier.
It would, of course, reduce the cosy relationship between developers and government in determining what is good for the rest of us. Government departments would have to put in much more time and effort at early stages – not smokescreen PR and last-minute public presentations of stage-managed 'options'.
And it would surely lead to more openness and accountability by government. Perhaps that's the real problem.