Site
LIMIT SITE DISTURBANCE
MINIMIZE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT
choose sites that are already disturbed - ie already developed and not a greenfield site.
MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
UTILIZE EXISTING STORMWATER PATHS
REDUCE OR ELIMINATE LIGHT POLLUTION
INCREASE WATER USE EFFICIENCY
Building
maximize desirable solar orientation
high performance envelope such as insulated wall, roof, windows and doors
energy
energy controls on heating/cooling system
maximize daylighting
materials
provide for storage and collection of recyclables
reuse an existing building
use materials with recycled content
use durable materials and easily maintained finishes
use sustainably harvested wood
use locally at-sourced materal where possible
indoor air quality
increase ventilation effectiveness
use low voc materials
operable windows
individual control of lighting, ventilation, and/or heat
provide views to outside from most occupied spaces
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Climate for Change - AL GORE
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum — including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers — agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America’s darkest hour, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop “the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources.” His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And — not coincidentally — it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds — and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn’t have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here’s what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis — and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama’s campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
THE inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he — and we — must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis.
Economists across the spectrum — including Martin Feldstein and Lawrence Summers — agree that large and rapid investments in a jobs-intensive infrastructure initiative is the best way to revive our economy in a quick and sustainable way. Many also agree that our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year. Moreover, national security experts in both parties agree that we face a dangerous strategic vulnerability if the world suddenly loses access to Middle Eastern oil.
As Abraham Lincoln said during America’s darkest hour, “The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” In our present case, thinking anew requires discarding an outdated and fatally flawed definition of the problem we face.
Thirty-five years ago this past week, President Richard Nixon created Project Independence, which set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop “the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources.” His statement came three weeks after the Arab oil embargo had sent prices skyrocketing and woke America to the dangers of dependence on foreign oil. And — not coincidentally — it came only three years after United States domestic oil production had peaked.
At the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries. Yet today, after all six of the presidents succeeding Nixon repeated some version of his goal, our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds — and many feel that global oil production is at or near its peak.
Some still see this as a problem of domestic production. If we could only increase oil and coal production at home, they argue, then we wouldn’t have to rely on imports from the Middle East. Some have come up with even dirtier and more expensive new ways to extract the same old fuels, like coal liquids, oil shale, tar sands and “clean coal” technology.
But in every case, the resources in question are much too expensive or polluting, or, in the case of “clean coal,” too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate. Indeed, those who spend hundreds of millions promoting “clean coal” technology consistently omit the fact that there is little investment and not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of this pollution. If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then I’m all for it. But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion.
Here’s what we can do — now: we can make an immediate and large strategic investment to put people to work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth.
What follows is a five-part plan to repower America with a commitment to producing 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crisis and the economic crisis — and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
First, the new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.
Second, we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.
Third, we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.
Fourth, we should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
Fifth, the United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.
Of course, the best way — indeed the only way — to secure a global agreement to safeguard our future is by re-establishing the United States as the country with the moral and political authority to lead the world toward a solution.
Looking ahead, I have great hope that we will have the courage to embrace the changes necessary to save our economy, our planet and ultimately ourselves.
In an earlier transformative era in American history, President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon within 10 years. Eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. The average age of the systems engineers cheering on Apollo 11 from the Houston control room that day was 26, which means that their average age when President Kennedy announced the challenge was 18.
This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obama’s campaign. There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future, once again turning seemingly impossible goals into inspiring success.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Press Release 10 Sept 2008
I have received several queries in regard to my decision to run in the functional constituency (Architectural, Surveying and Planning) seat and asked to comment in particular, now that the dust has settled, on the low number of electoral votes my campaign garnered, which unfortunately resulted in loss of my deposit.
From the outset I had no real intention of running a winning campaign. My only aim was to focus the debate solely on spreading the message of building sustainability and conservation. Electors received from me just one letter, printed on recycled paper, and I produced no posters or any other electoral press kit – everything else was done electronically.
I did minimal vote canvassing preferring to present at company / institutional forums and talk to the media primarily to try and get the message of sustainability and conservation over to the attendees, viewers and listeners.
Naturally I congratulate the winning candidate, the incumbent Professor Patrick Lau, and I am pleased that Legislator Lau has corresponded with me and affirmed his commitment to the cause of sustainable buildings and building conservation hence it is my hope my objective has been partly achieved.
The investment I have made in terms of money and time I consider well worth spent if it results, for all citizens, cleaner air, sustainable living environment, and keeping what little is left with our heritage buildings - never again should we accept another piece of wanton destruction of our heritage like the Star Ferry and Queen Pier.
At the end of the this new legislatures current term in 2012 I hope we can look back and see our representatives have made decisive steps to clean our air, make our buildings sustainable and keep our heritage intact.
I am hopeful that message has been delivered.
From the outset I had no real intention of running a winning campaign. My only aim was to focus the debate solely on spreading the message of building sustainability and conservation. Electors received from me just one letter, printed on recycled paper, and I produced no posters or any other electoral press kit – everything else was done electronically.
I did minimal vote canvassing preferring to present at company / institutional forums and talk to the media primarily to try and get the message of sustainability and conservation over to the attendees, viewers and listeners.
Naturally I congratulate the winning candidate, the incumbent Professor Patrick Lau, and I am pleased that Legislator Lau has corresponded with me and affirmed his commitment to the cause of sustainable buildings and building conservation hence it is my hope my objective has been partly achieved.
The investment I have made in terms of money and time I consider well worth spent if it results, for all citizens, cleaner air, sustainable living environment, and keeping what little is left with our heritage buildings - never again should we accept another piece of wanton destruction of our heritage like the Star Ferry and Queen Pier.
At the end of the this new legislatures current term in 2012 I hope we can look back and see our representatives have made decisive steps to clean our air, make our buildings sustainable and keep our heritage intact.
I am hopeful that message has been delivered.
Professor Lau, our new AS&P LegCo support sustainabilty and conservation
Below is an email from Professor Lau:
Dear David,
We missed you at the vote counting activity.
Please be assured that sustainability & conservation will be high on my agenda.
Don't hesistate to call on me when you have time to do community work in these areas.
Warm regards, Patrick
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM, David Chan <david.chan@hk.knightfrank.com> wrote:
Dear Patrick,
Congratulation on your win over the AS&P functional constituency. It was a decisive victory and I think overall is good for Hong Kong.
As discussed before, I did not run a campaign to win but to simply spread the message of the importance of the effect of global warming, sustainability and conservation which I hoped that does include you.
I am hence hopeful that sustainability and conservation will remain high up on your political agenda so that we can build a better HK for us all and the next generation.
All the best at LegCo.
David
Dear David,
We missed you at the vote counting activity.
Please be assured that sustainability & conservation will be high on my agenda.
Don't hesistate to call on me when you have time to do community work in these areas.
Warm regards, Patrick
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM, David Chan <david.chan@hk.knightfrank.com> wrote:
Dear Patrick,
Congratulation on your win over the AS&P functional constituency. It was a decisive victory and I think overall is good for Hong Kong.
As discussed before, I did not run a campaign to win but to simply spread the message of the importance of the effect of global warming, sustainability and conservation which I hoped that does include you.
I am hence hopeful that sustainability and conservation will remain high up on your political agenda so that we can build a better HK for us all and the next generation.
All the best at LegCo.
David
Today the LegCo result finally came out.
I didn't run a campaign to win so not winning was expected.
I was a little surprise that the imminent effects and consequences of global warming had just so little impact to the AS&P electors. but then I guess I did not do a convincing enough show.
Like the article from SCMP, it took something like Katrina to make Americans start to listen to what it could be like it something is not done.
But what ever it is, I have no wish for something like a Katrina for Hong Kong.
I am hopeful that I am wrong, that the problem really is less serious than scientists are predicting.
I guess at least Dr Lau, the newly re-elected LegCo member did pledge that he will take both sustainability and conservation seriously and will do something about it at LegCo.
It is interesting that we had uses quite a few hundreds of thousands of trees in this LegCo, at least I can say I made the least damage. I also hoped that future elections will be more environmentally friendly, I just don't see in this day and age of technology advances that we need to do this the same way as the last century.
Thank you for those that decided to vote for me, or those that who may not have but considered the message of sustainability and conservation is important and should be much higher up in the political agenda. In the end politics is not going to bring back the star ferry pier and has little impact on global warming, but it does affect our future.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
AS&P LegCo forum or a war of words between IA and IS....
I normally only report on global warming issue.
But I think this is worth sharing as it was basically open war of words between HKIS presidents, senior members of the HKS and HKIA council.
On Thursday 4 sept 2008 7pm till late was the "main" institute arrange election forum, HKIS decided not to have one.
The meeting, organize by the HKIA with members of HKIS, HKIP, HKILA invisted
A joint forum was not a bad idea if the aim is find a new Legislative Councilor representing the Architectural, Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency. A new strong, honest, professional, a person with integrity who was supposedly going to unite the 6100 or so professional members on a common goal and mission to develop a better Hong Kong. it was a closed forum, outsiders were hence not invited. No press was present.
It was one of the last opportunity for the 4 new candidates and the incumbent to talk about how they are the best person to do this job for the next 4 years
This "main event" (which felt more like the Hong Kong version of American idol) was not well attended, only about 40 but I guess still at least allowed the 5 LegCo candidates to speak to members of the all 4 institutes. Of the 6100 members about 40 weret here, primarily "council members, various appointed election agents and helpers (probably take up about a dozen).
There were some argument about seating with the HKIS president decided not to sit upfront for the forum. Kind of strange when the forum sole purpose was for all the candidate to speak.
After another 5-10min of arguing, with senior members of the HKIA shouting across the room about the IS candidate not respect architects, counter statement about improper actions of some members etc. Finally it was decided that the Surveyor candidate would sit in as a bystander.
So after 45 mins, the event finally started, and we all did our standard speech, I did my usual single agenda about the accelerated effect of global warming, that the sea could start flooding in by 2013. Had all this data with me expecting people might ask about this, where the water is coming from, what can we do, if it does come what would HK be like,what kind of flood defense we might need etc.
Not one single question has been asked on these, I also thought there may be some questions about the introduction of a sustainability code. What we can do to upgrade our very outdated building regulations to new energy and insulation requirements. Perhaps some might be interested in how old buildings could be upgrade to better energy efficiency how much we could save electricity cost. Even upgrade of the fire safety requirements to avoid future problem like the recent fire?
How about conservation, someone must be interest in how best we should conserve what little left of our heritage, after all thousands of people did protest about the demolition of the Star ferry pier, Queens pier. people protest, camped and slept overnight, hunger strike etc etc, perhaps these must be interested on that. In the end there was a planner who did question about why did the incumbent decided to take the absent vote. there were some discussion about what each would do and right and wrong of it all (and all that time I was thinking look guys, we lost these pier for good, even if one was rebuilt after all this reclaim, it will just be a monument not quite the working pier that use to serve royals, high ranking civil servant, investments bankers and corporate get together boat rides.
I thought shouldn't we be talking more as to how were can best stop things like this from ever happening again. but the conversation degenerated into rule and regulations of how antiquity board work and there are so much great things already the LegCo had done etc etc..
There were bit and pieces about people political view, whether the candidates are democrats, whether they are pro development. there were some talk about sustainability (a few minutes quite a bit about how bad the government system of engaging consultants.
about how fees are 20% of normal under a competitive tender.
There were ideas about how great overseas countries are in engaging consultants based upon good architectural design. As everyone who have worked overseas knows, this is not really strictly true as the same kind of complaints or new types of equally valid complaints are also said overseas, like bidding a one dollar fee?
Anyway, no point in elaborate on that, other than the grass is always greener on the other side and many of the great ideas about how open competitions are in the wast are limited to grand scheme projects and most other mundane government projects are procure the same way, proposals plus fee. There was the show of 2 year old Al Gore inconvenient truth again (which until recently I have only find out that most of the professional had not seen).
There was a bit more talk about planning, how would transfer of development right would solve the problem of Hong Kong. There were more discussion about democrat, should the LegCo vote for the AS&P member or the view of the party.
Toward the end, the HKIS candidate did decided to say some words about integrity and how he would unite the four institute, some of the audience opening criticize how could this be true if you can't even respect this forum and sit in front on stage and answer the questions?
More back of forth of angry words, other statements which I was too hungry and tired to remember and that was about it, after 2 hours and30 mins, the show of the next Hong Kong Idol was finally over.
I can go home, hopefully see my children before they go to bed. It is interesting that I notice most of the younger members who came to listen has gone, drifted away quietly probably a long time ago, and what was left was council members, some familiar faces that seem to like going to these and ask the "tough questions". There were few tough question at least for me anyway, other than some strange looks, probably thinking what is this guy doing here talking about global warming and conserving what is left of our heritage in Hong Kong.....
"what is in it for him, why is he here?"
I guess these were my thoughts
Can I be wasting my time?
But then, it was getting late, and I was really tired, and was looking forward in seeing my family....
But I think this is worth sharing as it was basically open war of words between HKIS presidents, senior members of the HKS and HKIA council.
On Thursday 4 sept 2008 7pm till late was the "main" institute arrange election forum, HKIS decided not to have one.
The meeting, organize by the HKIA with members of HKIS, HKIP, HKILA invisted
A joint forum was not a bad idea if the aim is find a new Legislative Councilor representing the Architectural, Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency. A new strong, honest, professional, a person with integrity who was supposedly going to unite the 6100 or so professional members on a common goal and mission to develop a better Hong Kong. it was a closed forum, outsiders were hence not invited. No press was present.
It was one of the last opportunity for the 4 new candidates and the incumbent to talk about how they are the best person to do this job for the next 4 years
This "main event" (which felt more like the Hong Kong version of American idol) was not well attended, only about 40 but I guess still at least allowed the 5 LegCo candidates to speak to members of the all 4 institutes. Of the 6100 members about 40 weret here, primarily "council members, various appointed election agents and helpers (probably take up about a dozen).
There were some argument about seating with the HKIS president decided not to sit upfront for the forum. Kind of strange when the forum sole purpose was for all the candidate to speak.
After another 5-10min of arguing, with senior members of the HKIA shouting across the room about the IS candidate not respect architects, counter statement about improper actions of some members etc. Finally it was decided that the Surveyor candidate would sit in as a bystander.
So after 45 mins, the event finally started, and we all did our standard speech, I did my usual single agenda about the accelerated effect of global warming, that the sea could start flooding in by 2013. Had all this data with me expecting people might ask about this, where the water is coming from, what can we do, if it does come what would HK be like,what kind of flood defense we might need etc.
Not one single question has been asked on these, I also thought there may be some questions about the introduction of a sustainability code. What we can do to upgrade our very outdated building regulations to new energy and insulation requirements. Perhaps some might be interested in how old buildings could be upgrade to better energy efficiency how much we could save electricity cost. Even upgrade of the fire safety requirements to avoid future problem like the recent fire?
How about conservation, someone must be interest in how best we should conserve what little left of our heritage, after all thousands of people did protest about the demolition of the Star ferry pier, Queens pier. people protest, camped and slept overnight, hunger strike etc etc, perhaps these must be interested on that. In the end there was a planner who did question about why did the incumbent decided to take the absent vote. there were some discussion about what each would do and right and wrong of it all (and all that time I was thinking look guys, we lost these pier for good, even if one was rebuilt after all this reclaim, it will just be a monument not quite the working pier that use to serve royals, high ranking civil servant, investments bankers and corporate get together boat rides.
I thought shouldn't we be talking more as to how were can best stop things like this from ever happening again. but the conversation degenerated into rule and regulations of how antiquity board work and there are so much great things already the LegCo had done etc etc..
There were bit and pieces about people political view, whether the candidates are democrats, whether they are pro development. there were some talk about sustainability (a few minutes quite a bit about how bad the government system of engaging consultants.
about how fees are 20% of normal under a competitive tender.
There were ideas about how great overseas countries are in engaging consultants based upon good architectural design. As everyone who have worked overseas knows, this is not really strictly true as the same kind of complaints or new types of equally valid complaints are also said overseas, like bidding a one dollar fee?
Anyway, no point in elaborate on that, other than the grass is always greener on the other side and many of the great ideas about how open competitions are in the wast are limited to grand scheme projects and most other mundane government projects are procure the same way, proposals plus fee. There was the show of 2 year old Al Gore inconvenient truth again (which until recently I have only find out that most of the professional had not seen).
There was a bit more talk about planning, how would transfer of development right would solve the problem of Hong Kong. There were more discussion about democrat, should the LegCo vote for the AS&P member or the view of the party.
Toward the end, the HKIS candidate did decided to say some words about integrity and how he would unite the four institute, some of the audience opening criticize how could this be true if you can't even respect this forum and sit in front on stage and answer the questions?
More back of forth of angry words, other statements which I was too hungry and tired to remember and that was about it, after 2 hours and30 mins, the show of the next Hong Kong Idol was finally over.
I can go home, hopefully see my children before they go to bed. It is interesting that I notice most of the younger members who came to listen has gone, drifted away quietly probably a long time ago, and what was left was council members, some familiar faces that seem to like going to these and ask the "tough questions". There were few tough question at least for me anyway, other than some strange looks, probably thinking what is this guy doing here talking about global warming and conserving what is left of our heritage in Hong Kong.....
"what is in it for him, why is he here?"
I guess these were my thoughts
Can I be wasting my time?
But then, it was getting late, and I was really tired, and was looking forward in seeing my family....
Friday, September 5, 2008
In 2013, what could 7meter rise in sea level do to Hong Kong ?
Incoming tide
waterline will surpass legco
Increasing rainfall
And on the other side of the earth.........
Global warming, if the scientists are correct the two polar ice caps and glaciers melts.
So far most computer modelling conducted are wrong - this is happening faster than we all think.
We can wait for legCo to decide, we can wait for 2017 or 2020, we can wait for the new CE.
Global warming does not wait, it will come and politics are not going to stop that happening, when we start building huge flood walls all the way along our coastlines, when government starts to build massive dam liked barriers. Perhaps we can still wait.
Make Sustainability, Conservation and the environment central to government policies, make it a primary objective to reduce carbon emissions, do it now and make a better world for us and the future.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
August 2008 saw second largest summer shrinkage
A few years ago, scientists were predicting ice-free Arctic summers by about 2080.
Then computer models started projecting earlier dates, around 2030 to 2050.
Then came the 2007 summer that saw Arctic sea ice shrink to the smallest extent ever recorded, down to 4.2 million sq km from 7.8 million sq km in 1980.
By the end of last year, one research group was forecasting ice-free summers by 2013.
"I think we're going to beat last year's record melt, though I'd love to be wrong," said Dr Stroeve.
"If we do, then I don't think 2013 is far off any more. If what we think is going to happen does happen, then it'll be within a decade anyway."
Summer ice cover in the Arctic has declined sharply
Rising tide
Countries surrounding the Arctic are eyeing the economic opportunities that melting ice might bring.
Canada and Russia are exploring sovereignty claims over tracts of Arctic seafloor, while just this week US President George Bush has urged more oil exploration in US waters - which could point the way to exploitation of reserves off the Alaskan coast.
But from a climate point of view, the melt could bring global impacts accelerating the rate of warming and of sea level rise.
"This is a positive feedback process," commented Dr Ian Willis, from the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge.
"Sea ice has a higher albedo (reflectivity) than ocean water; so as the ice melts, the water absorbs more of the Sun's energy and warms up more, and that in turn warms the atmosphere more - including the atmosphere over the Greenland ice sheet."
Greenland is already losing ice to the oceans, contributing to the gradual rise in sea levels.
The ice cap holds enough water to lift sea levels globally by about seven metres (22ft) if it all melted.
Natural climatic cycles such as the Arctic Oscillation play a role in year-to-year variations in ice cover.
But Julienne Stroeve believes the sea ice is now so thin that there is little chance of the melting trend turning round.
"If the ice were as thin as it was in the 1970s, last year's conditions would have brought a dip in cover, but nothing exceptional.
"But now it's so thin that you would have to have an exceptional sequence of cold winters and cold summers in order for it to rebuild."
Only a major disaster would stir people into action?
SCMP 3 9 2008
This is the most recent article from a London-Based Independent Journalist Gwynne Dyer.
Interesting read, inside you will find that recent evidences are indicating that melting of the Ice Cap due to Global Warming could be as early as 2013 and not 2050 or 2070 as previously predicted.
The impact of this to Hong Kong - Up to 7 meters rises (22 ft) in sea level. Most of Hong Kong could be under water in 2013?
This is the most recent article from a London-Based Independent Journalist Gwynne Dyer.
Interesting read, inside you will find that recent evidences are indicating that melting of the Ice Cap due to Global Warming could be as early as 2013 and not 2050 or 2070 as previously predicted.
The impact of this to Hong Kong - Up to 7 meters rises (22 ft) in sea level. Most of Hong Kong could be under water in 2013?
A chilling thought.
The point of this article what would it take to make people realize that the problem is serious, in the US it took major destruction, lost of thousands of lives, millions of home, billions in damages of Hurricane Katrina before people started to take notice.
So what could make Hong Kong people take notice, by then could it be too late already? Can Hong Kong survive a direct hit the likes of Katrina?
Global warming open up seas peviously part of the Arctic
SCMP 1_9_2008
Open water now stretches all the way round the Arctic, making it possible for the first time in human history to circumnavigate the North Pole. Basically what this does represent is that a lot of Artic ice has melted.
Monday, September 1, 2008
David Chan (no4) - Sustainability and Conservation
Dear Electors,
My name is David Chan, Candidate No 4 for the AS&P functional constituency.
I am running this on a platform of sustainable development and conservation which affects our future, in particular our children future and the younger generations. The leaflets outline some of the main issues and would be very please if you do take a little of your time in reading it. The issues of global warming really is a lot more serious than most of us think and lead to believed. Unfortunately, my works does mean I need to do quite a bit of research into this topic and the more I do that the more I can see this as a problem that is not going to go away. The prospect of some part of Hong Kong being under water is really a possible reality that could happen within our lifetime.
So hence, my reason to run, that I would try in getting this message across for the changes needed, to make a better Hong Kong. That if we can really stop or slow this global warming process down, I can say to my children when they grown, that what we have done now have improve their future.
On Sustainability - I will be pushing for changes to the legislation and the introduction of sustainable building codes, Currently the Environmental Bureau (EB) have completed the public consultation and will be looking at how this could be implemented with a view of taking this to LegCo. The issue being the is primarily a EB/EMSD initiative and we know that there is an another side of this which is for building. The Buildings Department have launch a voluntary code, CEPAS, Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme For Building. While this is quite a detail documents, the take up rate for using this has being disappointing.
I think the way forward is for this or part of this to become mandatory.
It is worth noting that an environmental labeling system does not itself created green buildings, but just that by labeling sustainability, it that does provide consumer a choice when they buy or rent premises. The choice would be put to the consumers so that like buying a fridge or an Air-conditioning, you will have a clear label so that you know how energy efficient your building really is.
There is a separate exercise that is also required to amend the current building regulations and code of practices to international level so that better energy efficiency can be achieve, simple things like insulation windows with a performance driven energy requirements. In fact it is the time really to review the whole Building Ordinance totally so that it better reflect the design and construction requirements of modern times. Compare to other countries we are really quite behind. The recent problem with fire safety for example, further highlight the imminent need for changes to our understanding and implementation, and enforcement of fire safety, we should also be considering looking at a more performance basis systems.
On Conservation of our heritage
Conservation is part and parcel with sustainability and affect ours and the next generations. Ultimately what we do decide to destroy as part of our heritage now will mean those in the future will never be able to touch, feel and experience and that will be forever! The key message is that many parts of Hong Kong including Central, Wanchai has reached saturation point in its development and destruction of its heritage. It is quite obvious the condition of traffic in Hong Kong Island are congested and will remain so, even with the new proposed P2 bypass that has resulted in the lost of two of our most important heritage landmark, Star Ferry and Queens Pier, both now only exist truly in our collective memories.
If we continue at this unabated development rates, traffic congestion can only get worst, air quality further deteriorate, heat island effect increases, the city will get hotter, pollutant level higher and overall living and working conditions worsen.
At Mid-levels and Central we simply cannot build any higher with the current infrastructure and only the last remnants of the area's heritage remain - if you destroy these, then there is none left and Hong Kong will be lifeless as a chain of one mega shopping centre to another. Is that really what we want Hong Kong to be, a soulless city for shoppers?
For instance there is a great deal of anger and concern at URA's proposal on wanchai and central which will likely increase alienation and disaffection in the community against the government and the URA who will be seen as mainly enriching developers while destroying Hong Kong's heritage, destroying existing communities and destroying some of the most wonderful icon of Hong Kong which is loved by tourists and local people. I meet a lot of people from overseas, from international finance, expats and heads of large international companies, many are quite certain that places such as SOHO, Wanchai market are things that made people love Hong Kong and want to live here.
We are about to destroy more of these for short term profit replace with Disney style theme park shops, more high towers and again yet more shopping centres. We already have a Disney style Star Ferry, do we really want more? Will people still comes to Hong Kong for just gimmicks and shopping alone?
Professional Unity - one thing I have learnt is that there is a difference of opinions that had lead to really quite a degree of disagreement between the various institutes of AS&P. Primary this has been between architects and planners and the surveyors. It is interesting to note that this should not be happening because in the commercial world the various members of what we do actually compliment each others. That is almost all projects consist of Surveyor, Architects, Planners and Landscape architect at some stage of the design, construction and in fact over a building cycle. I believe there could be better way for us to work more closer together in particularly when under a LegCo who represent is, this should be the case, rather than architect will always side on architects, surveyors to surveyors, planner to planners etc. The voice of some of the smaller institutes such as Planners in fact and within surveyors the BS and Land surveyors should also be represented.
Overall I do believe in one man one vote and eventually the functional constituency will need to fall in line with what has been given in the time frame under the basic law under the principle of one man one vote. Until then we could do a lot more as "Professional" and a lot lot more for our environment. In many universities, the fact that Architectural, Surveying and Planning are all under the faculties of the Environment speaks for the fact that is really what we do.
Politically we need to think more that we are a city, a city within China that has a a high degree of autonomy, we are not a country so should not be driven politically or aspire to be one. As professional it is our duty to explain the benefits and problems when we build and develop onto our fragile environment.
I hope the future will be for all of us working together for a better world for us and our children we can all share as goal for a better future, in the end do we really want to be seen as elitist group of a little over 6000 plus of different disciplines and groups who cannot even agreed amongst themselves, particularly over important issues of conservation and environment. How can we as professional expect public support when we have fail them. We can continue to sit sit inside the small circle and continue to debate and scheming over the next best to protect the personal interest.
In the end, the final choice for the Electors are really between "conservatives", "liberals" or in the "middle of the road", those that "bends like a willow tree" or will "speak out" for the people:
So do you want a LegCo member who will delivered more of the same as before or do you want something very different, like putting environmental and conservation right up front as part of his political agenda, Look closely at the all the mail which you have, you will see unity, create business opportunity, promote professionalism, cultivate young talents etc etc. To me these are not platform but prerequisite to anyone who is standing for LegCo, why would anyone standing should want to state the obvious, which if you remember 4 years ago the statements are much the same as last time round.
It is like calling ourselves honest, trustworthy, dependable, professional. Is this not given?
Would you elect anyone who is not?
Attached is my original election platform and a couple of recent articles on sustainability features on the newspapers FYI. Some of my thoughts I have also put under my blog:
http://davidchanlegco.blogspot.com/
The Key I think is not to over promise of everything under the sun and giving a whole list of promises and can do's, which if you count them one by one, the question must be can this really be achievable within the next few years? Can anyone really do all that under a LegCo system with limited power and authority - a LegCo where as a Law maker, he or she can only passes laws that are put forward by the government, giving that one vote amongst many? We do need to be realistic, in promising the earth, this can only lead to future disappointments to their electors. but then he will already be in for a term and reach that goal.
For me doing 2 things:
Sustainability and Conservation, if I can just do these two tasks and do them well, I am certain we will already have a better Hong Kong for all of us.
I do look forward to your support, please support a better sustainable, greener Hong Kong.
Best Regards
David Chan - Candidate No 4 http://davidchanlegco.blogspot.com/
My name is David Chan, Candidate No 4 for the AS&P functional constituency.
I am running this on a platform of sustainable development and conservation which affects our future, in particular our children future and the younger generations. The leaflets outline some of the main issues and would be very please if you do take a little of your time in reading it. The issues of global warming really is a lot more serious than most of us think and lead to believed. Unfortunately, my works does mean I need to do quite a bit of research into this topic and the more I do that the more I can see this as a problem that is not going to go away. The prospect of some part of Hong Kong being under water is really a possible reality that could happen within our lifetime.
So hence, my reason to run, that I would try in getting this message across for the changes needed, to make a better Hong Kong. That if we can really stop or slow this global warming process down, I can say to my children when they grown, that what we have done now have improve their future.
On Sustainability - I will be pushing for changes to the legislation and the introduction of sustainable building codes, Currently the Environmental Bureau (EB) have completed the public consultation and will be looking at how this could be implemented with a view of taking this to LegCo. The issue being the is primarily a EB/EMSD initiative and we know that there is an another side of this which is for building. The Buildings Department have launch a voluntary code, CEPAS, Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme For Building. While this is quite a detail documents, the take up rate for using this has being disappointing.
I think the way forward is for this or part of this to become mandatory.
It is worth noting that an environmental labeling system does not itself created green buildings, but just that by labeling sustainability, it that does provide consumer a choice when they buy or rent premises. The choice would be put to the consumers so that like buying a fridge or an Air-conditioning, you will have a clear label so that you know how energy efficient your building really is.
There is a separate exercise that is also required to amend the current building regulations and code of practices to international level so that better energy efficiency can be achieve, simple things like insulation windows with a performance driven energy requirements. In fact it is the time really to review the whole Building Ordinance totally so that it better reflect the design and construction requirements of modern times. Compare to other countries we are really quite behind. The recent problem with fire safety for example, further highlight the imminent need for changes to our understanding and implementation, and enforcement of fire safety, we should also be considering looking at a more performance basis systems.
On Conservation of our heritage
Conservation is part and parcel with sustainability and affect ours and the next generations. Ultimately what we do decide to destroy as part of our heritage now will mean those in the future will never be able to touch, feel and experience and that will be forever! The key message is that many parts of Hong Kong including Central, Wanchai has reached saturation point in its development and destruction of its heritage. It is quite obvious the condition of traffic in Hong Kong Island are congested and will remain so, even with the new proposed P2 bypass that has resulted in the lost of two of our most important heritage landmark, Star Ferry and Queens Pier, both now only exist truly in our collective memories.
If we continue at this unabated development rates, traffic congestion can only get worst, air quality further deteriorate, heat island effect increases, the city will get hotter, pollutant level higher and overall living and working conditions worsen.
At Mid-levels and Central we simply cannot build any higher with the current infrastructure and only the last remnants of the area's heritage remain - if you destroy these, then there is none left and Hong Kong will be lifeless as a chain of one mega shopping centre to another. Is that really what we want Hong Kong to be, a soulless city for shoppers?
For instance there is a great deal of anger and concern at URA's proposal on wanchai and central which will likely increase alienation and disaffection in the community against the government and the URA who will be seen as mainly enriching developers while destroying Hong Kong's heritage, destroying existing communities and destroying some of the most wonderful icon of Hong Kong which is loved by tourists and local people. I meet a lot of people from overseas, from international finance, expats and heads of large international companies, many are quite certain that places such as SOHO, Wanchai market are things that made people love Hong Kong and want to live here.
We are about to destroy more of these for short term profit replace with Disney style theme park shops, more high towers and again yet more shopping centres. We already have a Disney style Star Ferry, do we really want more? Will people still comes to Hong Kong for just gimmicks and shopping alone?
Professional Unity - one thing I have learnt is that there is a difference of opinions that had lead to really quite a degree of disagreement between the various institutes of AS&P. Primary this has been between architects and planners and the surveyors. It is interesting to note that this should not be happening because in the commercial world the various members of what we do actually compliment each others. That is almost all projects consist of Surveyor, Architects, Planners and Landscape architect at some stage of the design, construction and in fact over a building cycle. I believe there could be better way for us to work more closer together in particularly when under a LegCo who represent is, this should be the case, rather than architect will always side on architects, surveyors to surveyors, planner to planners etc. The voice of some of the smaller institutes such as Planners in fact and within surveyors the BS and Land surveyors should also be represented.
Overall I do believe in one man one vote and eventually the functional constituency will need to fall in line with what has been given in the time frame under the basic law under the principle of one man one vote. Until then we could do a lot more as "Professional" and a lot lot more for our environment. In many universities, the fact that Architectural, Surveying and Planning are all under the faculties of the Environment speaks for the fact that is really what we do.
Politically we need to think more that we are a city, a city within China that has a a high degree of autonomy, we are not a country so should not be driven politically or aspire to be one. As professional it is our duty to explain the benefits and problems when we build and develop onto our fragile environment.
I hope the future will be for all of us working together for a better world for us and our children we can all share as goal for a better future, in the end do we really want to be seen as elitist group of a little over 6000 plus of different disciplines and groups who cannot even agreed amongst themselves, particularly over important issues of conservation and environment. How can we as professional expect public support when we have fail them. We can continue to sit sit inside the small circle and continue to debate and scheming over the next best to protect the personal interest.
In the end, the final choice for the Electors are really between "conservatives", "liberals" or in the "middle of the road", those that "bends like a willow tree" or will "speak out" for the people:
So do you want a LegCo member who will delivered more of the same as before or do you want something very different, like putting environmental and conservation right up front as part of his political agenda, Look closely at the all the mail which you have, you will see unity, create business opportunity, promote professionalism, cultivate young talents etc etc. To me these are not platform but prerequisite to anyone who is standing for LegCo, why would anyone standing should want to state the obvious, which if you remember 4 years ago the statements are much the same as last time round.
It is like calling ourselves honest, trustworthy, dependable, professional. Is this not given?
Would you elect anyone who is not?
Attached is my original election platform and a couple of recent articles on sustainability features on the newspapers FYI. Some of my thoughts I have also put under my blog:
http://davidchanlegco.blogspot.com/
The Key I think is not to over promise of everything under the sun and giving a whole list of promises and can do's, which if you count them one by one, the question must be can this really be achievable within the next few years? Can anyone really do all that under a LegCo system with limited power and authority - a LegCo where as a Law maker, he or she can only passes laws that are put forward by the government, giving that one vote amongst many? We do need to be realistic, in promising the earth, this can only lead to future disappointments to their electors. but then he will already be in for a term and reach that goal.
For me doing 2 things:
Sustainability and Conservation, if I can just do these two tasks and do them well, I am certain we will already have a better Hong Kong for all of us.
I do look forward to your support, please support a better sustainable, greener Hong Kong.
Best Regards
David Chan - Candidate No 4 http://davidchanlegco.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Effect of global warming - Wilkins Ice Shelf, Near Antarctica, Hanging By Its Last Thread
(Credit: Image courtesy of British Antarctic Survey)
ScienceDaily (July 10, 2008) — The Wilkins Ice Shelf is experiencing further disintegration that is threatening the collapse of the ice bridge connecting the shelf to Charcot Island.
This image acquired by Envisat’s Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) on 9 July 2008, shows the current state of the break-up event which began on 28 June on the east (right) rather than the on west (left) like the previous event that occurred last month. By 8 July, a fracture that could open the ice bridge was visible. (Credit: ESA)
I think the images speaks for themselves.
And back in HK.......
And the trailer for film - An Inconvenient Truth 《不願面對的真相》
Monday, August 25, 2008
Q: How do you see your chances?
Q: How do you see your chances being 1 of 5 in fighting for the limited votes?
I see this as how to bridge the gap between various really quite different professions, obviously trying to run on a single ticket is quite radical as often Hong Kong people like to see the more the better. However I think I am being realistic as I know the limit as what a LegCo can do and achieve in one term. I think some of the promises made by other candidates in their political platform are almost impossible to fulfilled and only leads to disappointments. In reality promising the earth, trying to be vague are often the ploy with many politicians in the West do and people do see through that, Hong Kong political scene however are quite new so there is a tendency to over promises. This as we all know is a major problem associated with Hong Kong, the government including our own CE who have been the most competent Financial Secretary and Chief Secretary in the past but suffer in recent times as people aspirations and high expectations for him was drum-up to be too high.
Similarly we see the same for many members of the Legco and heads of the political parties. But saying yes to everyone and promising everything may get you into politics, but sooner the later people will find out and just get disillusion when things are not done. By concentrating on one doable but important issue, one goal which I think could be achievable within a 4 years term. I think I can at least do that for the Electors. Not that the other issues are not important but these will be tackle one by one as time and as the economy changes anyway, what is decided now may not be the same in a year time. But the problem of the greenhouse gases and pollutants in our atmosphere does not changes.
I see this as several issues:
1) As a Director running a building surveying division, I managed surveyors as well as working with architects, QS and contractors. In some way I probably a lot more closer to the Quantity Surveyors and Building Surveyors than the GP surveyor. I know for instance that for many of the building surveyors has felt that they have been left out of recent improvements in the property markets, in fact we are now talking about a down turn already and many BS are saying what has happen? In similar terms we do a lot of joint projects with land surveyors so I can also see synergy in that too. We do worked quite a lot with government architects and surveyors in renovations, maintenance, on enforcements of unauthorized building works, inspection and hand over of HA flats etc. I can hence also say that I know most of the Electors in terms of what they expects of a LegCo member.
2) For most of my career I have worked along side QS on several infrastructure and development projects for the railway corporations, including sitting inside a project offices (AKA working in these a metal container shed) , I am quite familiar with the the workload and aspirations of QS, for instance, the portable nature of the skill sets of the QS are in fact a strong selling point allowing many to venture into new market such as mainland, middle east such as Dubai and other parts of the world in consulting, contracting and as clients. The biggest problem that QS has found that they have not been represented well by successive LegCo and the HKIS who are now primarily an GP organisation. QS works together or with architects, engineers and contractors but rarely with GP, so it will not be surprising that they feel left out of many issues.
3) On Green building, as one of few people amongst the candidates that has written and presented in conference on the issues of sustainability and the effects of global warming. I think there is a growing number of electors that share the same concerns as me, as to what kind of world Hong Kong will be like in the near future, what kind of environment will we be providing for our children? For me it is this reason alone that I am standing for LegCo - the lingering question am I doing enough? I can at least say that I have try my best.
4) Unfortunately, being labeled as "the expert" at conferences does meant that I do need to do a considerable amount of research on this topic. The problem is the more I get myself involved the more worry I get, in fact the word 'scary' come to mind, scared that the problem is actually much more serious than it is and the fact that most people including the government in Hong Kong are unaware or oblivious to the fact that many parts of Hong Kong could really be flooded well within our life time. Imagine we may need to build tall wall defenses along the coastline?
5) Anyway, this is the reason I have try and provide some practical solutions as to how environmental could become central to how we can develop and construct and maintain buildings , as many countries and cities around the world have already started. Also why I have given in greater detail within my "platform" as to how sustainable development could really be implemented by changes to the building ordinance, code of practices etc as well as land and planning, not just giving lip service as "green is good".
To get this message through is in fact much more important to me.
Many architects are already really quite focused on the environment and sustainable construction. But I hope that they will share the same passion that I have on this issues and do something about, not just talking.
In the end pushing for legislation and new sustainability codes is the only way forward.
I see this as how to bridge the gap between various really quite different professions, obviously trying to run on a single ticket is quite radical as often Hong Kong people like to see the more the better. However I think I am being realistic as I know the limit as what a LegCo can do and achieve in one term. I think some of the promises made by other candidates in their political platform are almost impossible to fulfilled and only leads to disappointments. In reality promising the earth, trying to be vague are often the ploy with many politicians in the West do and people do see through that, Hong Kong political scene however are quite new so there is a tendency to over promises. This as we all know is a major problem associated with Hong Kong, the government including our own CE who have been the most competent Financial Secretary and Chief Secretary in the past but suffer in recent times as people aspirations and high expectations for him was drum-up to be too high.
Similarly we see the same for many members of the Legco and heads of the political parties. But saying yes to everyone and promising everything may get you into politics, but sooner the later people will find out and just get disillusion when things are not done. By concentrating on one doable but important issue, one goal which I think could be achievable within a 4 years term. I think I can at least do that for the Electors. Not that the other issues are not important but these will be tackle one by one as time and as the economy changes anyway, what is decided now may not be the same in a year time. But the problem of the greenhouse gases and pollutants in our atmosphere does not changes.
I see this as several issues:
1) As a Director running a building surveying division, I managed surveyors as well as working with architects, QS and contractors. In some way I probably a lot more closer to the Quantity Surveyors and Building Surveyors than the GP surveyor. I know for instance that for many of the building surveyors has felt that they have been left out of recent improvements in the property markets, in fact we are now talking about a down turn already and many BS are saying what has happen? In similar terms we do a lot of joint projects with land surveyors so I can also see synergy in that too. We do worked quite a lot with government architects and surveyors in renovations, maintenance, on enforcements of unauthorized building works, inspection and hand over of HA flats etc. I can hence also say that I know most of the Electors in terms of what they expects of a LegCo member.
2) For most of my career I have worked along side QS on several infrastructure and development projects for the railway corporations, including sitting inside a project offices (AKA working in these a metal container shed) , I am quite familiar with the the workload and aspirations of QS, for instance, the portable nature of the skill sets of the QS are in fact a strong selling point allowing many to venture into new market such as mainland, middle east such as Dubai and other parts of the world in consulting, contracting and as clients. The biggest problem that QS has found that they have not been represented well by successive LegCo and the HKIS who are now primarily an GP organisation. QS works together or with architects, engineers and contractors but rarely with GP, so it will not be surprising that they feel left out of many issues.
3) On Green building, as one of few people amongst the candidates that has written and presented in conference on the issues of sustainability and the effects of global warming. I think there is a growing number of electors that share the same concerns as me, as to what kind of world Hong Kong will be like in the near future, what kind of environment will we be providing for our children? For me it is this reason alone that I am standing for LegCo - the lingering question am I doing enough? I can at least say that I have try my best.
4) Unfortunately, being labeled as "the expert" at conferences does meant that I do need to do a considerable amount of research on this topic. The problem is the more I get myself involved the more worry I get, in fact the word 'scary' come to mind, scared that the problem is actually much more serious than it is and the fact that most people including the government in Hong Kong are unaware or oblivious to the fact that many parts of Hong Kong could really be flooded well within our life time. Imagine we may need to build tall wall defenses along the coastline?
5) Anyway, this is the reason I have try and provide some practical solutions as to how environmental could become central to how we can develop and construct and maintain buildings , as many countries and cities around the world have already started. Also why I have given in greater detail within my "platform" as to how sustainable development could really be implemented by changes to the building ordinance, code of practices etc as well as land and planning, not just giving lip service as "green is good".
To get this message through is in fact much more important to me.
Many architects are already really quite focused on the environment and sustainable construction. But I hope that they will share the same passion that I have on this issues and do something about, not just talking.
In the end pushing for legislation and new sustainability codes is the only way forward.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Q: Why am I running?
Q: Why did you decide to run for LegCo?
A few weeks ago, my family and I decided to take the ferry from central to TST. We walked along from the tram stop at central and up along the elevated footbridge. About mid point is the Central reclamation.
My children stop and asked me a simple question. What happen here, is this not where the ferry pier use to be? The conversation went on about how the government has knock down the pier and is going to build a road there instead. My daughter further ask why does the government do that, can't we do anything about it?
She also asked me "Daddy why can't you tell the government to stop, can you stop all this from happening?"
It then dawn on me that yes, maybe I should have tried harder before and do something more than just complaining about it. Perhaps I can and should make a difference?
Q: What are your view about the Queens pier?
I like to start with the Star ferry pier, you see the ferry pier has quite a lot meaning to me and my family. Each year just before Christmas for the past eight years, we do this trip where we take the tram to central, then the ferry from the old Star ferry to TST, the purpose is simply to see the display of lights from the harbour. The walk starts at stature square where there is really a wonderful display there annually, we then walk along the underpass, for which every year except for the last was decorated, full of Christmas display. We then take the ferry, the same journey that I use to take with my Grandmother over 30 years ago, the smell of grease and oil with the sea air, walk on the old wooden gang-plank as we board.
The cool slightly chilly breeze of winter. Yes, these are really perfect moments, encapsulating everything what Hong Kong is all about.
And the harbour, this beautiful harbour of ours that has set the scene for so many stories, films and novels, from Suzy Wong to 007.
From the ferry, we look across both sides to see our skyline in all its glory.
I guess my point is that the Queens Pier may have equally as strong memories for others as the Star Ferry Pier has been for my family and I, after all it is where many gets on their boats to rides out to the islands, where the old royals, and successive colonial governors goes for their sea trips, in short historically it forms what is now commonly known as our "collective memories".
And yes, these are parts of our heritage of the people of Hong Kong, our collective memories that now only exist in our thoughts alone.
So back to the the reason why I am standing for LegCo?
There are times when we say "enough is enough" this is the line which must not be cross but they are. When citizen rise up and say no more.
When someone say "what would you prefer a star ferry pier or the queens pier that is part of Hong Kong history, our history. Or knock it all down and put a big multi-lane road. There is really no contest. When we are ask do we want this harbour or more road and offices? The answer to me should be simple.
Q: So do you mean collective memory, what are your view of this collective memory?
When something is gone from our lives, that is it, we might have fond memories. , even if you try and replicate it, rebuilding it is really not the same. If we want to see replicants, there are many places to go, including just across the boarder to the "Window of the World" in SZ or Disney or Lego land (perhaps "LegCo Land" of the future may share the same fate).
The question to everyone of us must be , what can be the next? Are there anything that can be considered as sacred , How about the old LegCo building itself? Should that become part of a road too? What about Victoria park, this last remainly bit of green space in HK? I am sure building a roard across would ease traffic big time. Would there not be a day when the government decide even the entire Victoria harbour could be filled in, because traffic is just so bad and slow. So that we can then just drive across, we can build more tall towers, offices and huge shopping centers all the way along the stretch from Shengwan over to quarry bay as a continue strip, we could then have a further 12 lane super highway running across it.
As LegCo, I think I can help to defend for our collective memories, be that voice who would and should have said a firm No. To draw that line and be that voice for the Electors.
To ask the question is there really a better way? Are we to forever continue to build and build without any regards to the future, our future for us and our children who has no say in whether they would want to continue to take the ferry from star ferry.
To be able to breath fresh clean air, everyday. To be able to see across the harbour and the distance mountains. To see the stars up in our night sky. To have a harbour that does not get narrower and narrower year on year.
That is my dream, my believe and my pledge to electors that I will speak out. As I truly believe that many like me, we are at the tipping point of enough is enough.
But in the end, it is your choice too, I am hoping that people would join me, help to make a better world for our future. A better, cleaner and greener future.
(Pictures are copyright under a creative common attribution sharealike license from Wikipedia)
Thursday, August 14, 2008
2008年立法會選舉候選人
陳贊輝 (候選人 G4)
建築、測量及都市規劃界
綠色票-可持續發展
親愛的選民， 我主要的重點是可持續性發展和環境問題，以及我們如何作為建築師，測量師及規劃師能夠有所作為。
不過，如果我當選，我承諾：
ü 更廣泛地代表我們專業的利益;
ü 每月舉行業界會議，讓你們從而對政府高級官員和立法機關作出影響;
ü 有關你們提出的任何問題/電子郵件，若合情理，定必儘快答覆;
可持續性發展和環境
全球絶大多數的頂尖科學、生態專家均一致評論： [ 温室效應所導致的後果 ]，其實比許多人預期的還要嚴重更多。世界上大部分冰川將在20年內逐漸融化，導致海洋水位不斷上升，這一切將會在我們及下一代內呈現眼前。甚至香港的部分土地亦有可能長埋於海底之中。
全世界超過百分之四十的能量都消耗於建築物的相關使用上，其實即使是微小的力量也能改變我們的未來。雖然解決或緩減温室效應這工作看似很困難，但我深信作為建築師、規劃師及測量師，我們是有責任去盡力改善一切的﹗眾所周知，香港一些關於規劃、設計、建築、物業管理及維修的立法，大部分已不合時宜及追不上現今的環境生態。我認為應刻不容緩地作出根本性的改變，使其趕上及達至國際的環保水平。
土地的規劃發展 – 為實現理想的持續發展，政府應推出更多的鼓勵政策，如增加綠色的規劃設計，額外地積比率等。
建築設計 – 現行一般設計上的規律方法(Prescriptive)，應改為從效應(Performance) 的角度出發，才能切合現今的環保需求。上世紀的條例或常規做法已不能符合變幻莫測的新科技及新時代。對於環境方面的條例應有明確規定，並與國際標準接軌。
建築 – 是否實施可持續的理想發展，應該由消費者選擇。帶有 [ 能源和碳指標 ]的標籤應清楚說明我們可以根據基準，決定自己想購買、居住或工作的建築物。我們可以選擇不購買或不使用一些有可能破壞未來環境的建築物。
發展 – 認為開發和建築祗有壞處是一種錯誤的觀念。事實是，我們需要發展商和承建商去建設我們的社會及家園。在建設發展的同時，他們會為我們帶動社會經濟及投資商機，亦為成千上萬的香港巿民提供就業機會。本人深信未來的發展方向是在可持續的理想目標上與發展商合作。如果我們真正想擁有一個綠色的未來，我們需要有相關的政策和領導，實施強制性、可持續性的 [ 能源和碳指標 ] 標籤，讓消費者來選擇和決定購買、租住一些有效能的理想環境。令消費者選用更多的環保設施，這將使發展商興建及推動更多環保的發展。我們應該為一些致力於環保發展上的發展商提供更多彈性奬勵。值得指出的有，採用有綠色特徵(green features)的成功案例已清楚表明了巿場有這種需求。故對於有關的合作夥伴關係如私人機構與政府的合作夥伴關係(Public & Private Partnership)，一些如免稅、貸款、回贈款、稅務回扣等等，可在建設發展過程中作進一步考慮，將有助加快推動更多環保的發展。
現有的建築物 – 我們應速使舊有樓宇更有效率地利用能源。最簡單的方法是政府能夠為舊有樓宇提供 [ 持續性低息貸款 ]。事實上，政府、專業人士和公眾之間的不信任，緩慢了整個社會的發展。我們應該實施理念，使大眾互相信任。我們應該背負這個使命，在政府、專業人士，發展商及公眾之間，維持一個和諧的社會。簡而言之，如果對抗及指責文化盛行於社會上，滲入到香港巿民的生活中，這樣必定無利於社會，更不會給任何人帶來好處。
我現今的工作需要到世界各地，如中國內地、新加坡、日本及亞洲其他地區發展物業。由於工作關係，我曾視察超過200個物業項目，他們都有顯著的“綠化建築設計” ，尤其是在中國，我所看到有著難以置信的進步，並在多方面比香港明顯地更好，香港應該擁有與國家相同的理想。保護環境和實施可持續發展已經成為國家的一個首要工作，對於我們的香港及未來，我們有義務保護這個屬於每一個人的美麗地球。
理想的發展為我們的世世代代，讓孩子和他們的子女有一個值得居住的美好家園。
這是我們的當務之急。
如果您安於現狀，接受現有的舊方法和思想，正如我們所看到的過去十年，同樣的舊政策，雖然有很多人可以接受這一點。
但
如果你認為必須有一個更好的政策，並像我真正地相信香港可以改變得更美好，請投陳贊輝一票，為我們的未來 – 實施可持續發展，建立一個綠色的未來。
陳贊輝 (Candidate No G4) 建築、測量及都市規劃界
http://davidchanlegco.blogspot.com/
Tel. (+852) 6198–4853
Email. dtfchan@gmail.com
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Elections to the Legislative Council 2008
The Green Ticket – Sustainable Development
David Chan陳贊輝 (Candidate No. G4)
Architectural, Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency
David Chan陳贊輝 (Candidate No. G4)
Architectural, Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency
- http://davidchanlegco.blogspot.com/
Tel. (+852) 6198–4853
Email. dtfchan@gmail.com - Dear Electors:
- My message and main emphasis is on sustainability and environmental matters and how we as Architects, Surveyors and Planners can make a difference. However, if elected, I also pledge to:
- To Be your Voice and represent the wider interest of our professions;
- Hold monthly constituency meetings to give electors access to influence senior government officials and the legislature;
- Reply expeditiously to all sensible e-mails from electors concerning any issues raised by them;
Sustainability and the Environment
Scientists around the globe are converging with the conclusion that the effect of global warming is actually more serious than originally forecast. The likely effect could be that the significant areas of the polar ice caps and world’s glaciers could melt within 20 years, which will result in rising sea levels. There is the real threat that within most of our lifetime some parts of Hong Kong could be under water.
Buildings consume over 40% of the world’s energy use hence, each building user / owner can make a difference, however small it may seem.
While the task appears insurmountable, I believe there is much we can do as Architects, Surveyors and Planners.
Ø Legislation – It is well known that our legislation for the planning, design, building, building management and maintenance are grossly outdated. The time has come for major changes to bring it up to international level and beyond.
Ø Land and Planning – the Government should provide greater incentives for achieving sustainable development such as a mechanism that allows Developers to build more green features with a corresponding reduction in land premium. The property will be worth more and hence will generate a higher ratable value over the buildings lifecycle exceeding the reduction in land premium. Hong Kong citizens win by getting sustainable buildings with a corresponding smaller carbon footprint and the Government sees more revenue albeit spread over the lifecycle of the building instead of at a short term land auction.
Ø Design – the use of prescriptive method in design should be replaced with a more performance based building codes, which suitably address the needs and aspirations of today’s world. Our Ordinances, Code of Practices, formed generations ago does not fully meet the needs of the constantly changing world and technological advance of our time. There should be concessions for sustainable innovations with clear sets of environmental codes at least on par with international standards.
Ø Building labeling – The implementation of sustainability labeling to give consumers the choice. With labeling for energy and carbon usage clearly stated we could benchmark and decide for ourselves do we want to buy, rent, live or work in an environmental efficient building.
Ø Existing buildings - there is clearly a need to upgrade the energy efficiency for older buildings and the simplest way I think is by promotion and provision of no interest loans for refurbishing buildings incorporating sustainable features.
Ø Development – Clearly there is a misconception that all development and building is bad – Not true – we need Developers and Builders to build our homes and offices. Whilst they do so primarily for financial gain (and conversely undertake financial risk) we need policies and leadership so they build more sustainable buildings.
To encourage Developers to build more building with green features we could, for instance, provide more flexible incentives. It is worth pointing out that the success in adopting the currently available, albeit nominal, green features clearly indicate a demand. Consideration could be in the form of for tax breaks, partnership, loans, public and private partnership (PPP) etc could be a way forward.
The mistrust between our sector, Government and the public that has been allowed to filter into today’s society must be addressed by strengthening the ideal that Professionals and Government are in tune with the publics wishes and to reverse the blame game inherent in society. Lets get everyone on side to support the Green Ticket to begin to see environmentally friendlier and sustainable buildings in Hong Kong.
About myself, I don’t have a Campaign Manager nor will I be sending you glossy books or brochures to highlight my candidacy. It just plain illogical to base my candidacy on the message of protection of the environmental yet insist on sending reams of paper that will only to go in the bin within days.
The green voice is not currently being heard in our legislature and if you would like more of the same for the next few years then there are other candidates who would be able to deliver this for you. If you believe perhaps there could be a different way, a different future. We as citizens, individuals of Hong Kong, China and of this Earth, can truly make a difference by simply adopting sustainable development principles and challenging our Government take the lead to consider everything we do today on sustainable terms and how each of us can affect our world.
Look for the candidate that will work with you and map out the future and beyond. Not as a member of an elite group but truthly believing in supporting our future and to be your voice, a representative, that will speak on your behalf to our Government of your concerns and aspirations.
I urge you to spare a moment to look at the following websites.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
http://www.wecansolveit.org/
I have also copy of the film “An Inconvenient Truth” if anyone wishes to borrow it.
Maybe after watching, you can then decide how to cast your vote? Decide for yourself and ask the question could some parts of Hong Kong be under water within 15 to 20 years? Could this really happen? What will it do to our Economy?
Think of what kind of life it will be if we can no longer see across the harbour due to smog, that the morning and evening sky will be lit up in an eerie shade of yellow everyday. All this will happen within our lifetime if we don’t start making a stand.
Think of our children, as parents we spend time, effort and money getting them through school, making sure they are healthy, spending our best effort for their well being, to hopefully ensure they have a bright future. But have we missed anything?
My work takes me all across China and to date we have significantly reduced construction waste for over 200 projects that we do across Greater China,
As a father, I do the best for my family to make sure we have a secure and comfortable life and that they are well cared for. As a citizen, I pledge to do my bit, my small effort, for a greener society.
I sincerely hope that as Surveyors, Planners and Architects you share this concern for our environment, who ever you decide to vote for. The message for sustainable development is one, which will be heard, loudly in the new Legislative Council.
Best Regards
David Chan
陳贊輝 (Candidate No G4)
Architectural, Surveying and Planning Functional Constituency
http://davidchanlegco.blogspot.com/
Tel. (+852) 6198–4853
Email. dtfchan@gmail.com
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
可持續發展
我現今的工作需要到世界各地，如中國內地、新加坡、日本及亞洲其他地區發展物業。由於工作關係，我曾視察超過200個物業項目，他們都有顯著的“綠化建築設計” ，尤其是在中國，我所看到有著難以置信的進步，並在多方面比香港明顯地更好，香港應該擁有與國家相同的理想。保護環境和實施可持續發展已經成為國家的一個首要工作，對於我們的香港及未來，我們有義務保護這個屬於每一個人的美麗地球。
理想的發展為我們的世世代代，讓孩子和他們的子女有一個值得居住的美好家園。
這是我們的當務之急。
如果您安於現狀，接受現有的舊方法和思想，正如我們所看到的過去十年，同樣的舊政策，雖然有很多人可以接受這一點。
但
如果你認為必須有一個更好的政策，並像我真正地相信香港可以改變得更美好，請投陳贊輝一票，為我們的未來 – 實施可持續發展，建立一個綠色的未來。
陳贊輝 (Candidate No G4)
建築、測量及都市規劃界
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg){kind=link}