What reasons did the Planning Committee have for rejecting the winning design and selecting the runner-up?

A. As recorded in the PAC report, members of the Planning Committee replied minutes including the following:

The Planning Committee was informed that submission 'L' should be regarded as the runner-up and had been considered a close second by those panel members

\\·ho \"oted for '1' and that the outcome was "finely balanced". The Planning Committee \\',1S told that the Assessment Panel had advised that both submissions

\\'ere acceptable but that submission '1' had a "slight edge",

There was no material difference in the estimated capital cost. No one could say there \\'<1S anI' difference in the recurrent cost implications, (The Assessment Panel had diftlcultl, in assessing this aspect).

Both were scheduled to meet an acceptable time scale.

The project controller's view that there would be less problems with submission

'L'.

According to the Chairman of the Assessment Panel, the submission 'L' archi -tects had the greater capability for project management.

The views and reasons of other members at various meetings on the two submis-sions which clearlv favoured submission 'L'. university. Not at all attractive.

(iii) DiHiculty in future extension without disturbance to completed build-ings.

(iv) Poor interface between School-based Research and Centralized Research.

_____________________________________ Inl

(v) If adopted, need to have a great deal more modifications in design which would take considerable time and result in high cost.

(vi) Multi-Purpose Hall was sited at a much lower level.

(vii) Enclosed courtyard type of students housing could bring about environ-mental problems and reflect insufficient utilization of the open site and its scenic view.

(viii) Building cost comparable to and not cheaper than some other design.

Desigll 'J' Desigll'L'

Mrs Alice LAM:

My decision to reject T was based on various grounds. From the design point of view, I found it difficult to appreciate. There were also professional advice on the difficulty of extensive modification of design at all stages; and also continuous

"decanting" of building creating great disturbances for many years to come.

Sir S. Y. CHUNG:

Apart from those of my opinions recorded in the minutes of the meetings, I also shared many of the views of the Vice-Chancellor in rejecting the winner of the competition.

Prof. Joshua S. L. WONG:

I cannot remember details of the design of T and 'L' but I do recall I genuinely believed that the runner-up was better than the winner.

I thought choosing the design of a close second was not a vast deviation from the recommendations of the Assessment Panel.

I was influenced by Dr Woo, who to me spoke for the user.

I believe the one main purpose of the competition was to solicit more inputs, in particular inputs from experts. It did not remove from the Planning Committee the responsibility of selecting the best design in their views, having considered all inputs.

Mr K. N. HOUGHTON:

My views are recorded in the minutes of the meetings of 15,20 and 21 Novem -ber 1987, namely that I believed that the problems in phasing and decanting had been minimized and potentially could be very disruptive.

Secondly, visually the complex seemed more suitable for an industrial park rather than a university.

Prof. Chia-Wei WOO:

The Planning Committee was accountable to society fot the planning of the new University, including making the final decision on its design. Every member ofth~

Planning Committee had to exercise his or her individual judgment.

The winner of the competition· did collect the prize money. The wording of

I~I~---Clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition let the Planning Committee fultll its responsibility by selecting the right design for the building of the campus.

For the reasons summarised in the minutes, and again earlier in this letter, I personally did not favour submission 'J'.

Mr Steven K. L. POON:

My reasons in favour of submission ['L'] were recorded in the minutes and I quote:

15 NOJlc1I/.ber

"Mr Poon asked whether any of the submissions allowed for expansion beyond 10,000 FTEs. Mr Roper explained that whilst this was not a Planning Brief require -ment, submission 'L' had mentioned this factor and had made provision for the academic facilities to expand southwards along the upper platforms. Submission 'J' also had vacant space (currently taken up by a Science Park which had not been a Planning Brief requirement), but it was not clear how this could be used in a m'<1nner that would be consistent with its general architectural concept." -- I liked the flexibility for expansion of submission 'L'.

",Mr Poon appreciated the apparent provision [of submission 'L'] of escalators from the lowest to highest levels, and he liked the artistic approach to the provision of accommodation."

"Mr Poon identitled tlve different types of Housing [of submission 'L'], and thought they each made good use of the site."

21 NOJlwtbel'

"In Mr Poon's view, the Planning Committee were not architects and, all things being equal, if the time involved and the cost were within acceptable limits, mem-bers should consider the University's appearance. In this respect, submission 'L' had the character and charm and an identitlable entrance; submission 'J' lacked these and he found the vehicular arrangements unacceptable and potentially noisy."

Prof. T. C. CHEN:

In my view as an educator, the campus should encourage free and informal human interaction over an entire area, rather than within an elongated rectangle.

Prof. Y. K. CHEUNG:

Was informed by the Chairman that the winner would not automatically be the project architect, and that he is quite certain of the legal grounds. I agreed with other members that the overall design of 'L' was more attractive for a university.

Prof. D.

J.

As I recollect, this issue has been fully covered in the papers and minutes of the meetings to which you refer, and in the formal oftlcial press releases from the Secretary-General's oftlce at the time, all of which were approved by the Planning Committee: In this context I have checked the related paperwork which I have, and I feel there is nothing further that I can usefully add at this stage.