Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands project off east Lantau Hong Kong not sustainable?

Hong Kong government has plans for a massive reclamation, in waters between Lantau and Victoria Harbour, for something like a new mini city with central business district. First named East Lantau Metropolis, then Lantau Tomorrow Vision – even though not on Lantau – and, lately, Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands.

The Sustainable Lantau Office has been assigned this as major project, never mind it seems very unsustainable, and not on Lantau; see here, for instance: Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands.

I’ve had some contact with the SLO over the years, even done a couple of short videos on Lantau trails for them. On 27 April this year, after seeing an opinion piece in the South China Morning Post, I sent an email to SLO:

Bet u know this is true, just your jobs to carry on w crazy project 
Hope u can slow it so sense can prevail:

Hong Kong needs to invest in climate resilience, not artificial islands 
Martin Williams

This opinion piece included:

As an international research centre focused on health emergencies and disaster-risk management, we know that the risk of flooding disasters from climate change, including storm surges and rising sea levels, make up the key hidden cost in the development of artificial islands – and feel that precious resources must be better channelled to enhance our city’s resilience to disasters.

Since UN members adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, the global focus has shifted from post-disaster rescue to preventing new risks, reducing existing risks and strengthening resilience – through cost-effective investments to prevent social, economic and environmental losses.

Making similar points, I think, to a couple of opinion pieces I’ve done for the Post, and put on this website: Mad Lantau Metropolis Plans Should be Scuppered by Storm Surge Threat, Typhoon Jebi a Warning for East Lantau Metropolis aka Lantau Tomorrow Vision and Severe Typhoon Mangkhut highlights perils of massive reclamation by Lantau.

I did get a reply from SLO, but ignoring the opinion piece:

Thank you for your email dated 27 April 2023, concerning about the climate resilience of Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands (KYCAI). 

In view of the potential coastal hazards brought by climate change, rising sea level and extreme weather events, please be advised that the coastal risks of KYCAI has been assessed based on the design standard and with reference to the latest climate change forecast released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nation.  Given the uncertainty of future climate, a preliminary proposal has been formulated using progressive adaptive approach. This approach is commonly adopted in the overseas project, including those in New York, the United Kingdom, and Singapore.  Under the preliminary proposal, the site formation level of KYCAI is designed to 7.5m above the Principal Datum (mPD) on average and the highest level is 9mPD for the exposed area at the east, south-east and south of KYCAI. [my emphasis, Martin] Regarding the coastal defence infrastructure (e.g. seawall), design allowance would be given such that the coastal resilience could be enhanced as and when required (say by increasing the height of the seawall).  Further, to minimize the coastal risk to the public, building developments are proposed to be set back by 20m to 30m away from the shoreline.  An expert panel with Professor Joseph Lee Hun-wei, Professor Philips Liu Li-fan and Professor Zhang Chang-kuan as members has been set up; and the expert panel opines that the preliminary proposal has duly considered hydraulic, environmental and climate change factors. 

environmental and climate change factors. 
Sustainable Lantau Office 
Civil Engineering and Development Department 

Dear Anonymous of SLO

I replied with a longer missive:

Dear Anonymous of SLO: 

Thanks for the email, which wasn’t really a reply to my message. 

Alas, presumably as you are very busy doing things that aren’t really about sustainability for Lantau, you didn’t take time to read the article, and simply ignored much of it. 


//The financial resources allocated for the development of artificial islands could be better used in reducing disaster risks and building resilience.//

– this is something I’ve noted before. HK woefully unprepared for storm surges, particularly given climate change.

You cite what other countries are doing; well the UK has the Thames Barrier, built at considerable expense, to protect London from storm surges. HK has nothing at all similar; and with the vast funds required for the Lantau Metropolis – Lantau Tomorrow – island reclamation, we will perhaps never have adequate resources. 
//Moreover, building artificial islands requires large amounts of energy and materials, particularly the huge volume of seabed sand to be extracted and transported. This will result in significant greenhouse gas emissions, at a time when the Hong Kong government has made commitments under the Paris climate accords and to carbon reduction through its Climate Action Plan 2050.// 
– so, right from the start, the island reclamation will be unsustainable. 
Have you considered renaming to Unsustainable Lantau Office? 

Professor Joseph Lee Hun-wei – what predictions of his have proven correct? I see he works in Macau; did he help predict the storm surge flooding that caused casualties, including people who drowned in the basement of their shop? 

Professor Philip [not Philips] Liu Li-fan – based in Singapore; modelling but I don’t see re real world predictions proving correct
Professor Zhang Chang-kuan – not a storm surge specialist; nor a climate expert

So though you name drop professors, in reality they are all basing views in fair part on guessology.

And the higher the reclamation, the more fill needed, higher the costs – so the more unsustainable it becomes. Plus, more settling, uneveness afterwards; makes for ugly areas not befitting a CBD.

Ah yes, the CBD.

Is this just a fantasy, a fairy tale?

Surely anyone who has been to the supposed second CBD in East Kowloon can relate that in no way does it seem like a major business district.

And right now, of course, even the main business district from Central to Wanchai is hardly thriving; easy to read of businesses relocating offices from Hong Kong. No major ones arriving…

Likewise we read of Hongkongers leaving, including younger well educated ones; schools having to close as too few pupils.

So notions island will be useful as place to live also look like fantasies.

I just spent two nights on fringe of Tung Chung. Seemed an ok residential area; but very very quiet, perhaps most flats seemed unoccupied.

– helps show that people don’t want to live out, relatively far from core of urban Hong Kong.

I doubt you know anyone who wants to live on this fantasy island.

You might not remember the boasts and hubris before Tung Chung was built; how it would be lovely place, like a garden city, something like that.

Not the sad soulless place it is now; with visitors arriving for cheapo fashions and as gateway to that White Elephant Bridge to Macau and Zhuhai [seen traffic numbers there, compared to predictions? – again, engineers and builders, especially those tasked with getting infrastructure done, or able to profit handsomely from public purse, are gung-ho while others not so much.  Seems familiar re the island reclamation project?!]

But of course, as “Sustainable Lantau Office”, you’re supposed to do more than just this island reclamation.

Pui O, say, was supposed to be enhanced. Hasn’t happened. Likewise so much of Lantau; years of work, but no actual benefits for biodiversity and scenery. [couple of nice videos by me, but that’s hardly enough for establishing SLO etc etc. If you’d given me pots of money as spent on SLO, would be improvements people could notice by now, not just words but not action, and a host of small ineffective projects.]

Which isn’t so much your fault, I know.

A small department, stuffed with engineers, not biodiversity experts; and overseen by a pleasant chap bound for retirement. [I don’t know leader now]

How about funds, resources?

Any figures for funding for concreting type projects for Lantau?

And how about for greening, actual sustainability?

I doubt you will share such info; but would be revealing, showing about the impetus for concreting, concreting, concreting, and never mind the green veneer, the fine words without action.


Wordy email from Sustainable Lantau Office dodges most questions

This led to a reply, but though quite long, wordy, again not really responding to points I made. I replied as follows, with comments:

Dear Anonymous of SLO [Cindy I believe]:

Thanks for taking time to cut and paste information in response to my email.

I shan’t phone Ms Wong – you, as surely can’t address concerns, as not addressed here.

The SLO, with engineers, planners, architects, landscape architects, conservation officers, and curators etc. has been implementing the conservation and development initiatives and projects set out in the Sustainable Lantau Blueprint and Conservation and Recreation Masterplan by phases. Besides government’s effort, we also collaborate with non-profit making organisations and private land owners to carry out conservation and related projects through the Lantau Conservation Fund.  In two rounds of application invitation, a total of 31 projects involving $88,800,000 have been approved and have commenced progressively since 2021. 

– as I noted the projects through the Conservation Fund are remarkably ineffective.

You kind of agree with this, as you fail to note any improvement to biodiversity that has resulted. Mostly, just money wasted with no KPIs: consider Shui Hau tidal flats, no better after perhaps a few million dollars thrown at projects.

Instead, damage continues, as at Pui O.

And government fails to take effective action – like the zoning that has for decades been known to be needed for legal enforcement vs damage; along with actually putting enough resources into reversing the decline.

So, the number of projects may just seem good to anyone who is not familiar with Lantau; which I would hope does not include members of SLO. [Might also say an email has many words in it; but still doesn’t make it a great email!]

According to the Conceptual Spatial Framework under the final recommendations of “Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030” (Hong Kong 2030+) promulgated in 2021, the development of the KYCAI which is at a strategic position within the expanded Harbour Metropolis can provide about 1 000 hectares (ha) of land for meeting part of the medium to long-term land requirement of Hong Kong. It is further elaborated in the 2022 Policy Address that the KYCAI will expand the scope and capacity of Hong Kong’s development and enhance Hong Kong’s competitiveness as a financial, commercial and trade centre. It also includes part of the land of the KYCAI (about 300 out of the 1 000 ha) as one of the supply sources of the 3 280 ha of developable land in the entire territory in the coming 10 years. Indeed, the concept of developing the artificial islands has been discussed and explored for many years since 2011. After an extensive public engagement in 2018, it became one of the priority options for land supply. The Government hence commenced the related planning and engineering studies. We should move on to tap constructive views on how to refine the project rather than continuing the debate on whether to implement it or not. 

– Here, as if nothing has changed since 2018; and how extensive was this “public engagement”, really? Do many Hong Kong people feel they were engaged?

HK competitiveness is declining right now; and problems are not of a kind solvable by gigantic reclamation.

Besides, the entire KYCAI development is a long-term investment and, upon its full development, the associated economic activities would generate around $200 billion of value-added each year (in 2021 price), amounting to about 7% of the Gross Domestic Product. Furthermore, there will be social and economic value for supplying land for public housing and strategic transportation infrastructure. In conclusion, implementation of the KYCAI development is considered to have social and economic benefits to Hong Kong.  Since the entire development is a long-term investment with economic benefits, we consider that it is not necessary to rely solely on public expenditure to take forward the project. Apart from funding using Capital Works Reserve Fund, we have considered introducing one or more of the financing options, including bond issuance, Public-Private-Participation such as Build-Operate-Transfer Model to construct major road, Railway-plus-Property Model to construct railway, etc. to make appropriate use of market forces.

– Well, these are assertions, which may well not be realised in practice.

Ever been to Dubai? I have, and driving around, there are scattered projects that came to nought, just abandoned, developments started but now rotting.

I mentioned the promises and forecasts for Tung Chung that did not come true.

In the process of designing the KYCAI, we have fully considered the risks of flooding and overtopping waves under extreme weather conditions and climate change.  We have worked closely with the Hong Kong Observatory on different climate change scenarios to develop the coastal resilience strategy of which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s projection on the sea level rise up to year 2100 has been adopted as the basis for the design of KYCAI. We take further step ahead to conduct sensitivity tests to cater for the coastal hazard up to next mid-century (i.e. year 2150).  As mentioned in the previous reply, design allowance has been incorporated to cater for the very high emission scenario under the IPCC report.  We set an appropriate site formation level for the KYCAI and design adaptive and resilient coastal protection measures. We propose that the average site formation level is 7.5 metres above the Principal Datum. In some of the locations exposed to the wind, the level is as high as 9m above the Principal Datum, which is at least 6m higher than the current mean sea level of Hong Kong. We also take a progressive adaptive approach, which has also been adopted in many countries or regions around the world, including New York of the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore, to design coastal infrastructure facilities to provide sufficient flexibility and adaptability. We have designed some resilient capacity for the seawall so as to strengthen the ability of the KYCAI to cope with climate change, such as raising the height of seawalls or wave walls.  The above design strategy has been endorsed by the Expert Panel on Reclamation and Coastal Resilience comprised of independent experts formed for the KYCAI project, who opined that the preliminary proposal has duly considered hydraulic, environmental and climate change factors. 

– Yes, I was responding to info like this, which you are merely repeating here.

Kansai Airport was supposedly set to remain safe from storm surges for many years to come, but has been flooded.

– You ignore the environmental impacts of obtaining the massive quantities of fill required.

Clearly, then, you have not found an environmentally sound source, and consider this issue best ignored.

– Nor have you answered my point, as made in SCM Post article too, that money is best used for safeguarding the city from storm surge etc, so far as possible. HK does not have infinite money, even with government acting as if we have – with Northern Metropolis happening too.

In formulating the proposed “Three-island configuration”, factors including ecology, water quality, engineering feasibility, marine traffic and port operation have been fully considered. The proposed configuration can keep the KYCAI away from coral communities with ecological value along the coastlines of Kau Yi Chau, Siu Kau Yi Chau, Sunshine Island and Peng Chau. The Y-shape channel will effectively cope with the impact of reclamation on water quality and ecology by maintaining sufficient water flow velocity in the waters nearby. The design of the water channels is also aligned with the prevailing wind direction to reduce the urban heat island effect.  We plan to use the water channel as an ecological refinement measure to promote biodiversity through such as deploying artificial reefs at seabed and building eco-shoreline in the intertidal zone.  Besides, a comprehensive blue-green network will be planned on the KYCAI to create a diverse range of flora and fauna habitats to enhance biodiversity. 

– This is not a response to my email.

Again, assertions are made.

Did you see the boasts about the Chinese white dolphins, how they would be ok in waters north of airport? Well, they essentially don’t occur there any more. Just shows forecasts and reality can greatly differ.

We are conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study for the KYCAI development in accordance with the requirements of the EIA Ordinance and the EIA Study Brief. The preliminary findings show that the proposed reclamation works would not cause insurmountable impacts on ecology and fisheries.  Nevertheless, we will recommend appropriate measures to minimise the possible impacts of the reclamation works on the environment and propose appropriate mitigation measures.   

– So you plan to start, you’ve been working on “sustainable” for all these years, yet you don’t know what the mitigation measures are?

I remember boasts the Shek Kwu Chau Incinerator would have a design to suit the area; yet it looks like being just a box shaped monstrosity.

Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050 outlined four major de-carbonisation strategies, namely, net-zero electricity generation, energy saving and green buildings, green transport and waste reduction.  Following the above four strategies, we have formulated corresponding carbon de-carbonisation measures on three aspects in order to achieve carbon neutrality for the KYCAI, i.e. planning and urban design, infrastructure system and smart mobility (e.g. orientate building according to prevailing wind directions, develop green building and urban forestry, adopt the concept of 15-minute neighbourhood to encourage residents to travel by healthy modes such as walking or cycling, provide supporting facilities for electric vehicles and other new energy vehicles, use of Building Information Modelling and modular integrated construction to reduce the construction waste etc.).   

– Oh dear, this is so terrible it’s shocking.

Anyone calculated the carbon emissions from building the island, let alone all the development on it?

Including that fill, transporting it etc etc.

Of course you haven’t; would be a horrific figure.

“green buildings” etc just jargon, not achieved really: have you noticed all the glass in use; been in a mall early morning and found it cool, as aircon is on all night long, 24/7?

“urban forestry” is so ridiculous for an island reclamation, it’s just gobsmacking. Just pr puffery, someone putting in an idea for extra greenwashing.

Regarding your concern about the CBD3, please be advised that the KYCAI would be strategically located, which would only be around 4 km from Hong Kong Island West and around 10 km away from Central.  The CBD3 would be well served by transportation network.  The planned major trunk roads and rails could connect to Sunny Bay and link to the Hong Kong International Airport.  The strategic railway would be extended to Hung Shui Kiu for connection with the planned Hong Kong – Shenzhen Western Rail Link (Hung Shui Kiu to Qianhai) to Shenzhen.  The future economic development of Hong Kong was to take heed of the Belt and Road Initiative and the National 14th Five-Year Plan continued to support Hong Kong to enhance its status as an international financial, transportation and trade centre and a risk management centre; to establish itself as a centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia-Pacific region; to enhance its status as an international aviation hub; to develop into an international innovation and technology hub and a regional intellectual property trading centre; and to develop into a hub for arts and cultural exchanges between China and the rest of the world.  Thus, Hong Kong had the great potential to further expand its international financial and monetary and trade centre roles and the CBD3, with its strategic location, could be attractive for investors in Hong Kong. 

– Aha, you don’t even mention the supposed 2nd CBD, which doesn’t really exist if you go and look around. Nor the demise of Hong Kong’s main CBD, as Hong Kong kind of fades away, akin to a deflating balloon.

Here, you’ve just thrown a lot of fancy sounding terms together, that might seem good for public relations and impress a few people, but dig deeper and can see there’s no real justification for the island – so much of what is projected for the future has already happened [Hong Kong used to be a hub for exchanges with the world!; but look at even the visitor arrivals nowadays, look at the directions that international offices are moving headquarters etc etc].

This mention of connectivity with Shenzhen, absurd too [it’s not a hard place to get to, if no border issues], and directly contravenes the “15-minute neighbourhood concept”, again showing this giant island project is a mishmash of ideas thrown in.

Well, government has the power to push the project through. And that’s why it will go ahead, really.

But it’s not sustainable, and never will be; 

you also ignored my suggestion re name change to Unsustainable Lantau Office [even “Lantau” Is wrong here; really, best if SLO indeed focused on Lantau, actual sustainable projects; and left the ELM/ Lantau Tomorrow Vision/ Reclamation to another outfit, with a more fitting name. Perhaps those of you in SLO would be much happier this way, too!].

Martin Williams

My response to further response from the Sustainable Lantau Office

I sent the above on 30 May 2023, and it took until July before I received a response, which I replied to a few days later:

Dear Sustainable Lantau Office:

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Brief responses here and there; hopefully you too see different text for these, so not taking time to find them:

Lantau Conservation Fund 

2.        The Lantau Conservation Fund (LCF) has been set up to support projects that would contribute to the conservation of rural Lantau.  To guarantee a fair and transparent operation of the LCF, we have established an Advisory Committee (AC) comprising official members and non-official members from relevant fields appointed by the Secretary for Development.  The AC participates in vetting applications and monitoring the implementation of the approved projects.

3.        Since its inception in 2020, the LCF has been effective in attracting eligible organisations to submit funding applications of their Lantau conservation projects.  Among these applications, a total of 31 projects were approved and have been implementing orderly.  The approved projects cover a wide range of conservation initiatives, including animal ecology, amphibians, stream ecology, wetland functions, insect ecology, farming history, stilt house culture, etc. 

– Yes, but I asked about results, beneficial outcomes for natural environment, biodiversity.

Since you gave no examples, seems you don’t know of any.

Seems possible, then, these projects mainly for “show”, to be seen to be doing something rather than actual achievements.

Or well meaning, but ineffective.

Too little expenditure, of course; anyone looked at whether it may have been more effective to buy and manage some land at Pui O, say?

Town Planning Ordinance 

4.        As regards the amendments to the Town Planning Ordinance, the Legislative Council is currently scrutinizing the Development (Town Planning, Lands and Works) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2022.  One of the proposed amendments to the Town Planning Ordinance is to prescribe a new power for the Secretary for Development to designate areas in the New Territories which are covered by Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) but never been covered by Development Permission Area (DPA), as “regulated area” for the purpose of protecting the area from environmental degradation and/or for the purpose of nature conservation, so as to enable the Planning Authority to take enforcement and prosecution actions against unauthorised developments in the “regulated area”.  After the amendment ordinance comes into operation, the relevant enforcement provisions under the Town Planning Ordinance currently applicable to a DPA and offence for unauthorized development will likewise apply to the designated “regulated area”.

That seems good news!

Not before time of course; fingers crossed this proves effective.

Public Engagement of KYCAI Project

5.        The Development Bureau issued a press release on 27 April 2023 to conclude the interim public engagement activities for KYCAI project.  The press release can be accessed via the link below.


Social and Economic Benefits brought by KYCAI Project 

6.        Your points made to paragraph 4 of our email reply dated 25 May 2023 are noted.  We have no supplement on the social and economic benefits of KYCAI project and we are not in the position to offer views on your quoted overseas projects.  

7.        As far as Tung Chung New Town Extension project is concerned, we are delivering it in good progress, in compliance with the quality requirements and within budget.  The first batch of land at Tung Chung New Town Extension Areas 99 and 100 was handed over to the Hong Kong Housing Authority as scheduled in 2020 for public housing development with the first project completion estimated in 2024-2025.

Coastal Resilience of KYCAI

8.        Please note below our responses to your points made to paragraph 5 of our email reply dated 25 May 2023.

(a)        We have no supplement on the coastal resilience of the proposed KYCAI.  While we are not in the position to offer views on your quoted overseas project, we have many successful reclamation projects locally in Hong Kong.  As stated in page 50 of the public engagement booklet of the Task Force on Land Supply, about 27% of Hong Kong’s total population and 70% of its commercial activities are being accommodated on reclaimed land.  The booklet could be accessed via the link below.


” about 27% of Hong Kong’s total population and 70% of its commercial activities are being accommodated on reclaimed land”

– as you know through expertise in sustainability, this is cause for serious concern.

Hence wisdom of some protection for these areas, against rising sea levels, storm surges; 

You’ll have seen maps akin to the one attached; also recent news indicating climate change impacts are accelerating.

And, yes, you are making point that projects on reclamations can be economically viable here.

Not necessarily though; Science Park is hardly a rip-roaring success.

Disneyland a money loser; and if demolished could leave way for land that could perform many of functions planned for Kau Yi Chau. Win-win!

(b)        Regarding your concern over the fill materials, we will reuse inert construction and demolition wastes (i.e. public fill) generated by local projects as key fill materials for reclaiming KYCAI.  On average, about 15 million tonnes of public fill are generated every year in Hong Kong.  In 10 to 15 years, about 150 million to 230 million tonnes of public fill will be generated.  The remaining fill materials are mainly manufactured sand, which is a by-product of quarries.  Apart from supplying aggregates for concrete production and other construction works in Hong Kong, many quarries in the Pearl River Delta area of the Mainland supply manufactured sand.  The reclamation contractor has to submit proposals for the source of manufactured sand, including the relevant mining certificates, business licences and test reports, for approval. 

– Hmm, let’s see. 

And just because someone has a licence for something does not make it environmentally sustainable/responsible.

(c)        Please refer to paragraph 3 of our reply dated 25 May 2023 for the need of the KYCAI project for meeting part of the medium to long term land requirement of Hong Kong.  We wish to reiterate our stand that we should move on to tap constructive views on how to refine this land supply project rather than continuing the debate on whether to implement it or not. 

Environmental Impact Assessment for KYCAI Reclamation Works

9.        Please rest assured that the environmental impact assessment and the associated environmental mitigation measures for the reclamation works of KYCAI would be in full compliance with the statutory requirements under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499).

De-carbonisation Strategies for KYCAI 

10.        The de-carbonisation strategies for KYCAI has been stated in paragraph 8 of our email reply dated 25 May 2023.  The greenhouse gas emissions for KYCAI development will be appraised with reference to relevant United Nations guidelines such as “Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories” and “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories”.  We will strive to reduce the embodied carbon of materials and carbon emission during the construction stage of the KYCAI project.  For instance, we will deploy construction technologies, such as the building information modelling (BIM) and modular integrated construction (MiC) method, to facilitate off-site fabrication and reduce construction wastes.  We will also promote wider use of recycled cum environmentally friendly building materials.  

– Mention of BIM indicates something like more jargon than actual results here; as BIM can do little to reduce environmental impacts. [a few percentage gains, unless you have great examples]

Appraising greenhouse gas emissions compared to guidelines; yet how do they compare to having no reclamation project, and instead building on brownfields etc?

Strategic Positions of Three CBD in Hong Kong

11.        The proposed CBD3 is justified by the land requirement and supply analysis of Hong Kong 2030+ with the projection period up to 2048 taking into account the increasing opportunities arising from various national strategies including the 14th Five-Year Plan, the GBA development and the Belt and Road Initiative.

12.        As recommended in the Final Booklet of Hong Kong 2030+, the two existing CBDs and the proposed CBD3 would be complementary.  The CBD1 in Central and adjoining areas would be for “Consolidation” continuously providing opportunities for high value-added financial services and advance producer services in particular those preferring to conduct businesses at prestigious locations. The CBD2 at Kowloon East would be for “Transformation” offering relatively low-cost premises to small and medium enterprises, emerging industries, start-ups and businesses which are more cost conscious.  The CBD3 proposed at the KYCAI would be for “Creation” of a next generation business district with smart, modern and innovative environment taking the locational advantages in the midway between CBD1 and the “Double Gateway” of Lantau to the world and other GBA cities.

– Globally accepted definition of CBD: “The central business district (CBD) is that part of the city which contains the principal commercial streets and main public buildings. “ Exactly as Central on HK on Island.

Hence, the CBD2 is not a real CBD, but is being called one. And Kau Yi Chau unlikely to achieve this, especially given ongoing contraction even in Central, Hong Kong.

13.        The proposed strategic transport infrastructure for supporting the KYCAI (i.e. Hong Kong Island West-Northeast Lantau Link and Hong Kong Island West-Hung Shui Kiu Rail Link) would be planned to link up with the Route 11 as well as Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Rail Link (Hung Shui Kiu-Qianhai) under planning.  These could not only enhance the connections to the world and the GBA, but also develop key routes for opening up Hong Kong’s strategic transportation network.  Such enhancement of transport connectivity would not be contradictory with the “15-minute neighborhood concept” adopted for the planning of the seven living communities proposed on the artificial islands. 

Connections to the world cannot be environmentally friendly.

“15-minute neighbourhood concept” is again jargon.

Other Matter

14.        With the approval of the Legislative Council, SLO was set up in December 2017.  We do not consider it necessary to change the name or amend the duties of this Office.

– Well, hope you can work solely on sustainable projects then! 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *