HKUST
Architectural Design
A Comment on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee
On 10 March 1993, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Hong Kong Legislative Council is
s
ued
its report concerning the Government's handling of campus construction for the Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology.
One of the secondary issues examined by the PAC was selection of the project desig
n an
d the relat
e
d
architectural competition. Because of inquiries about the PAC's findings in this area, we have prepa
r
ed
t
he following summary based on minutes of the meetings conducted by the HKUST Planning Committee
and on testimony recorded by the PAC during its hearings
.
The Planning Committee held three meetings in November 1987
to discuss architectural plans for the new university
.
On
15 November, the Planning Committee reviewed 6
architectural models which the Assessment Panel judging the
architectural competition had shortlisted out of a field of
54
submis
s
ions. Members freely discussed the initial impressions
created by all
6 models.
On
20 November
,
the Planning Committee received the
recommendations of the Assessment Panel
,
which had selected
a winner of the competition.
Itwas reported by the P
a
nel's
Chairman that the decision in favor of the winner had not been
unanimous and that another submission had been considered a
close second. The Planning Committee was therefore "invited
to
consider
"
, in the words of the report, "whether the master plan
proposed by the winner of the competition or by the runner-up
s
hould become the blueprint for the University
".
In the ensuing discussion
,
it was affirmed that the responsibility
for deciding which design
to adopt for the new campus rested
with the Planning Committee. The Assessment Panel, which had
been appointed by the Committee
,
had fulfilled its charge by
selecting a winner of the architectural competition, thus
"
max-imising
"
the winner
'
s "chances of being considered suitable for
appointing as the project architect
"
.
Itwas the Planning Committee
itself
,
however, that was entrusted with the final responsibility
for determining the suitability of the design for the new campus.
On 21 November, following careful con
s
ideration, members of
the Planning Committee voted
to select the design that now
graces the campus at T
a
i Po Tsai. The vote
,
taken by secret ballot
to ensure the independence of each member
,
was unanimous: 15
to 0.
Q. Did the Public Accounts Committee criticise selection
of the design adopted for the new university?
A
No. The PAC could not reconcile it
s
views on thi
s
matter.
Three members chose to criticise certain aspects of the
selection process
,
while three other members explicitly
disassociated themselves from "the substance
orstyle of
criticism
"
expressed by their colleagues, "particularly as it
relates
to individuals associated with this fine project of
which all of us in Hong Kong can be proud.
"
Q. How could the judgment of a panel consisting of
"internationally renowned experts" be overturned by a
committee consisting "entirely of lay persons"?
AThese characterisations of the A
s
sessment Panel and
Plan-ning Committee were put forward by the three members of
the PAC who were critical of the selection process.
The Planning Committee was well aware that three of the
Assessment Panel's five members were from Hong Kong
and that these three had voted in favour of the winning
design
.
Neither of the two internationally renowned overseas
members had done so -
one of them had voted for the
runner-up
,
and the other had voted for the second runner-up
.
The members of the Assessment Panel were as follows:
Dr CHAN Nai-keong, Chairman
Chairman of the Capital Works and Building Projects Sub- Commit-tee, HKUST Planning Committee; Joint Deputy Chairman, Hong Kong Electric Holdings Ltd
Mr
CHUNGW
a
h-nan
Hong Kong Institute of ArchitectsMr Jose LEI Meng-can
Director of Architectural Services, Hong Kong Government Prof. Fumihiko MAKJ
Dept of Architecture, University of Tokyo
Dr R. L. WERNER
Former President, New South Wales Institute of Technology; Member, UPGC Sub-Committee for HKUST
The Planning Committee was made up of academic and
administrative leaders of local and overseas tertiary institutions, and leaders of industry and commerce. Many were distinguished engineers, and all were knowledgeable about technology and experienced in the use of technical facilities.
The 15 members of the Planning Committee who voted on
the campus design (and their professional experience):
Sir S. Y. CHUNG, Chairman
Senior Member of the Executive Council; Chairman of the Board,
Sonca Products Ltd
(Mechanical engineering, manufacturing)
Mr CHENG Hon-kwan, Deputy Chairman
Member of the Legislative Council; Senior Partner, H.K. Cheng and Partners Consulting Engineers
(Civil and structural engineering, polytechnic council)
Prof. T. C. CHEN
Head of United College, Chinese University of Hong Kong (Electrical engineering, university administration) The Hon. Stephen CHEONG Kam-chuen
Member of the Legislative Council; Managing Director, Lee Wah Weaving Factory
(Chemical engineering, manufacturing) Prof. Y. K. CHEUNG
Head, Dept of Civil & Structural Engineering, University of Hong Kong
(Civil and structural engineering, university administration) Mr K. N. HouGHTON
Associate Director, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong (Polytechnic administration)
Mrs Alice LAM
Asst General Manager, Hang Seng Bank (Law, banking, university council)
The Hon. LAU Wah-sum
President, W. S. Lau & Associates Ltd (Accounting, management, college council) Mr Andrew K. N. LI
Barrister-at-Law (Law)
Mr I. F. C. MACPHERSON
Secretary-General to the Planning Committee (Public administration)
Sir Gordon M. MAcwHINNIE
Deputy Chairman, The Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club; Director,
Mass Transit Railway Corporation
(Accounting, management, polytechnic council)
Mr Steven K. L. PooN
Manager, China Light & Power Co. Ltd (Electrical engineering, management)
Prof. David J. TEDFORD
Vice Principal, University of Strathclyde (Scotland)
(Electrical and computer engineering, university administration)
Dr Joshua S. L. WoNG
Chairman, Division of Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic (Electrical and electronic engineering)
Prof. Chia-Wei Woo
President, San Francisco State University; Vice-Chancellor (Designate), HKUST
(Physics, university administration)
Q.
Did the Planning Committee select a more costly
de-sign?
A. No. The preliminary estimates submitted by the architects
of the winning and runner-up designs were almost identical
in costs, differing by only 2%. Technical advisers who evaluated the designs for the Planning Committee had
differing opinions on the relative costs; one expert indicated
that in his view design
'J',
later judged the winner of thecompetition and seen by some as the simplest to build,
might even turn out to be
more
costly than design 'L', therunner-up.
Thus, allegations put forward to the effect that selection of
the runner-up design resulted in a "cost overrun" are
unfounded. The suggestion of three members of the PAC
that "adoption of the runner-up design 'L' in place of the
winning design
'J'
might
well
have led
to additional costbeing incurred" (emphasis added) was at best a guess. It
was explicitly contested by three other members of the PAC, who stated: "We cannot say with any certainty at all that one design would have been any cheaper than the other to build because of the preliminary nature of the costings in the design submissions and the relatively small difference
in costings between design
'J'
and design 'L'".Q.
Why was
the
PAC critical
of
the role
played by
the
Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Woo?
A. Again, it was not the PAC but rather
three
members of it who expressed "surprise" over what they chose to char-acterise as "a strong and persistent attack launched by Prof.Woo against the winning design
'J'".
The Planning Committee, having recently designated a
Vice-Chancellor for the new university, naturally expected
that individual to offer his views on the designs proposed for the new campus. Prof. Woo had reservations about the suitability of the design philosophy embodied in the
win-ning submission
'J',
and he expressed his opinionforce-fully, as did others who held similar views. While speaking
his mind in the course of the Committee's deliberations,
Prof. Woo also stressed repeatedly that he wished the
members to exercise their own individual judgment, and he would (in keeping with the democratic procedures followed by the Committee) accept the decision of the majority. Asked by the PAC whether his advocacy had influenced the other members of the Planning Committee, Prof. Woo
Design 'J', by Design Consultants & Lotus in association with Wong & Ouyang (HK) Ltd.
replied: "I certainly hope that the arguments I made were
sound enough to have been given due consideration by the
other members of the Planning Committee.
Itwould,
how-ever, be an insult to the intelligence of the other members to
suggest that they were easily influenced."
The written replies given by the other members of the
Planning Committee to the same question posed by the PAC
corroborate Prof. Woo's estimation of their independence
and acumen.
Q. What reasons did the Planning Committee have for
rejecting the winning design and selecting the
runner-up?
A
As recorded in the PAC report
,
the members of the Planning
Committee replied in writing to this question as follows:
The Hon. LAU Wah-sum:
I dislike submission' J' right from the beginning. I made my choice as an end-user of the product and believe that I have chosen the best model for the University.
Mr Andrew K. N. L1:
My reasons were the various matters discussed at the meetings as recorded in the 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 who voted for 'J' and that the outcome was "finely balanced". The Planning Committee was told that the Assessment Panel had advised that both submissions were acceptable but that submission 'J' had a "slight edge".
Design 'L ', by Simon Kwan & Associates in association with Percy Thomas Partnership (HK)
There was no material difference in the estimated capital cost. No one could say there was any difference in the recurrent cost implications. (The Assessment Panel had difficulty 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' architects had the greater capability for project management. The views and reasons of other members at various meetings on the two submissions which clearly favoured submission 'L'.
The strong views and reasons of Dr Woo against submission 'J'.
Mr I. F. C. MACPHERSON:
I felt that it was my duty as a Planning Committee member to consider the issue from the point of view of the end user. On functional and aesthetic grounds I did not feel that design 'J' would serve the interests of the end user satisfactorily. This was a crucial decision for the Planning Committee, and one it would have to live with for years to come. I believe that the decision, though difficult and controversial, was the right one.
Sir Gordon M. MAcwmNNIE:
I was finally convinced that from the point of view of the user, design 'L' was superior, and the fact that there was only 2% difference in the estimated cost of the two designs was relevant. There was no restriction imposed on the Committee by clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition in regard to the action taken by the Planning Committee.
Mr CHENG Hon-kwan:
All along I was not impressed by the "winner's design". My reasons included the following:
(i) Lack of a proper and well identified main entrance. (ii) Looking like a factory, warehouse or stable. No characteris-tics of a university. Not at all attractive.
(iii) Difficulty in future extension without disturbance to com-pleted buildings.
(iv) Poor interface between School-based Research and
Cen-tralized Research. ·
(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 environmental 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.
Mrs Alice LAM:
My decision to reject 'J' 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 'J' 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 November 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 for the planning of the new University, including making the final
deci-sion on its design. Every member of the Planning Committee had to exercise his or her individual judgment.
The winner of the competition did collect the prize money. The wording of Clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition let the Planning Committee fulfil 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 November
"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 requirement, submission 'L' had mentioned this factor and had made provision for the academic facilities to expand southwards along the upper platforms. Sub-mission '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 manner 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 identified five different types of Housing [ of submis-sion 'L'], and thought they each made good use of the site." 21 November
"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, members should consider the Universi-ty's appearance. In this respect, submission 'L' had the character and charm and an identifiable 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 auto-matically 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. TEDFORD:
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 official press releases from the Secretary-General's office 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
科大校園建築設計比賽引起的討論
香港立法局公共帳目委員會於一九九三年三月＋日發表有關政府處理香港科技大學校園興建費 用的報告。 公共帳目委員會關注的一個次要問題，是關於校國設計的挑選及建築設計比賽。由於公共帳目 委員會曾查詢有關這方面的情況，我們按香港科技大學籌備委員會有關之會議紀錄，及公共帳目委 員會的公開聆訊會上的發吉，準備了以下的撮宴。 香港科技大學籌備委員會在一九八七年舉行了三次會 答： 這僅是公共帳目委員會三位對挑選程序持批評態度的 議，討論大學校園的建設計劃。 成員，對評審委員會和科大籌委會所作的形容。 十一月十五日，籌委會審閱了六個參賽作品。此六項設 科大籌委會清楚知道，評審委員會的五位成員 計是由科大校園設計評審委員會在五十四份參賽作品中甄選 中 ， 有三位來自香港，他們都投了冠軍一票。其餘兩 出來的。籌委會成員自由地討論了他們對六項作品的觀感。 位海外有名的專家都沒有這樣選擇一一其中一位投了十一月二十日，評審委員會向籌委會推薦了他們還出的
亞軍，另一位投了季軍。
冠軍作品。同時，在評審委員會主席的報告中又提到，由於 評審委員會的五位成員是： 評審委員會成員並未能一致地選出冠軍作品，尚有另一項參 賽作品可被視為 E軍設計。因此，按報告所用字旬，科大籌 委會被 「敦請考慮到底應探周冠軍還是亞軍設計來作為科大 校園的總體設計」。 在接下來的討論中，大家同意：為興建科大校園挑選一 個設計方案，正是科大籌委會的責任。 比賽評審委員會為設 計比賽選出冠軍，按比賽規定，冠軍得主「被認為最適合委 任為工程建築師的機會最高」 。但是，為校園選取最合適設 計的職責，正是籌委會應負的最後責任。 十一月二十一日，經過詳細討論之後，籌委會投票選擇 了目前吃立在大埔仔現址的設計。為了保證每位成員均能獨 立地作出決定，籌委會探用了不記名投票的方式，以十五票 對零票，一致通過了現行的方案。 問 ： 公共帳目委員會有沒有批評新大學所探用的設計？ 答： 沒有。公共帳目委員會在這問題上沒能取得一致意 見。其中三位成員批評了挑選程序的某些方面，其餘 三位則明確地表示與這三位成員「所批評的內容與形 式」不表贊同，「特別是由於被批評人士正是與這個 全體香港人引以為榮的項目有關聯」 問： 由「國際著名專家」組成的比賽評審委員會所作的 決定，為什麼會被「全部由外行人」組成的科大籌 委會所推翻？ 陳乃強博士 （主席） 香港科技大學寶庫備委員會屬下基本工程及建築規IJ委員會主席 香港電燈有限公司副主席 鐘華楠先生 香港建第師學會 季銘根先生 香港政府遂自直署署長 1真文彥教授 東京大學建築系 韋納1尊士 新南威雷斯科技學院前校長 大學及理工教育資助委員會屬下香港科技大學委員會委員 科大籌委會的成員由本港及海外專上學府的學術 及行政領導、工商界領袖組成。其中不少是傑出的工 程師，既具科技知識，又對科技設施的使用富有經 驗。 下迪是科大籌委會十五位投票贊成現行校園設計 方案的委員名單（和他們的專業經驗） 鐘士元爵士 ，主席 行政昂首席議員﹔崇佳實業有限公司董事局主席 （機械工程，製造業） 鄭漢鈞先生，副主席 立法局議員 i 鄭漢鈞顧問工程師事務所高級合伙人 （土木及結構工程 ，理工學院校董） 陳天機教授 香港中文大學聯合書院院長 （電機工程，大學行政）張鑑泉議員 交設計作品時只有初步的成本預計 ， 而且 『J J 和 立法局議員﹔手lj 華紡織廠執行董事 （化學工程，製造業） 『L』 兩個方案的成本預計又是相差無幾。 」 張佑蚊教授 香港大學土木及結繕工程系主任 問： 為甚麼公共帳目委員會對校長吳家瑋教授的角色提 （土木反給備工程，大學行政） 出批評？ f畏頓先生 香港絨市理工學院副院長 心Cl : 同樣地，公共帳目委員會只有三位成員，並非整個委 （理工學院行政管理） 員會，指「吳教授強烈而持續地攻擊冠軍設計 『J
J
林拿翹如：女士 方案」’並表示對此感到「驚訝」 。 恆生銀行助理總經理 （法律，銀行，大學校董） 籌備委員會當時既委出大學候任校長，自然期望 劉華森議員 他對校園設計的建議提出他的見解。吳教授對冠軍方 劉華森顧問公司主席 案 『J 』 蘊含的設計理念是否合適一點上有所保留。 （會計，行政管理，專上學院校董） 他有力地表達自己的意見，就像其他持相同看法的人 李國能先生 大律師 一樣。吳教授在委員會的商講過程中表達自己意見的 （法律） 同時，多次強調，希望每名委員會成員作出其個人的 麥法誠先生 判斷。而他亦會按委員會遵行的民主程序，接受大多 科大租車委會秘書長 數人的決定 。 （公共行政） 麥蘊利踴士 吳教授被公共帳目委員會問及他的主張是否會影 香港賽馬會副主席﹔香港地下鐵路公司董事 響籌備委員會其他成員時，吳教授答說：「我當然希 （會計，行政管理，理工學院校董） 望自己的論據能受到籌委會成員適當的重視，不過， 清國 i軍先生 如果說籌委會成員很容易受人影響，這可說是對他們 中華電力有限公司經理 智慧的侮辱。」 （電機工程，行政管理） 戴賢範教授 公共帳目委員會曾向籌委會其他成員提出同樣問 斯達其過大學副校長 題，他們的書面答覆顯示，吳教授並沒有錯誤估計他 （電機及計算機工程，大學行政） 們的獨立性和判斷力 。 貧肅亮博士 香港理工學院工程學部主席 （電機及電子工程） 問： 籌委會是基於什麼原因，放棄冠軍而探用亞軍設計 吳~瑋教授 呢？ 三藩市州立大學校長﹔香港科技大學候任校長 生﹝立 ﹒. 籌委會成員對這問題曾作書面答覆 ， 並載於公共帳目 （物理學，大學行政） 委員會報告書內。各人的答覆如下： 問： 籌備委員會是否選擇了一個更昂貴的校圖設計方 ﹒劉華森議員 案？ 我從開始就不喜歡作品「 J 」。我以最終使用者 ：心：：：， : 不是。按當時初步估計，冠軍及亞軍作品成本相若， 的角度來作選擇，相信自己選擇了最適合此大學的設 相差不過百分之二。籌備委員會的技術顧問曾對兩項 計模型 。 設計進行估價，顧問們對此有不同的意見。其中一位 專家表示，「 J 」方案（稍後被選為冠軍而且被某必 ﹒李國能先生 人認為最容易興建的方案）可能比亞軍方案更昂貴。 我的選擇基於會議中討論的各點，己記載於會議 故此，如果認為科大「超支」是因為選取了亞軍 紀錄，其中包括：籌委會從評審小組的報告中，獲悉 設計所致，這種指責是毫無根據的。公共帳目委員會 作品「 L 」應被視為亞軍﹔投票選擇作品「 J 」的小 有三位成員認為：「選用亞軍 『LJ 方案代替冠軍方 組成員，也認為該作品低僅次於冠軍作品，兩者「勢 案 『J 』很有可能是後來建築成本增加的原因。」 均力敵」（見 107 及 112 節）。籌委會得悉，評審小 （加重了語氣）這說法極其量只是一種猜測。公共帳 組認為兩者都是可取的設計，唯以作品「 J J 「略佔 目委員會男外三位成員公開駁斥上述意見時說：「我 優勢」（見 130 節）。兩者所估計的基本建設成本， 們絕不能肯定說某方案比另一個方案廉宜，原因是提 實質上沒有差別（見 31 及 127 節）。也沒有人能指吳家瑋﹒
﹒校舍倘不實用才失望
科大籌委會成員曾統評寇軍作品侏工廠、倉庫、烏海，不像大學。（此團首次去開發表） ’‘戶
明報
可E.
、已」’，1
2 APR 1993
科大校園巫軍作品在風雨中已由棋型變為現實。 ’ EEBaa －－香港科技大學校舍建設被指超支事 － 4E 件，立法局眩 目 委員會的報告部分結 － T － m k am 型論直指控長吳家瑋﹔吳家瑋接受本報 國 Z i － νh E 記者訪 問時﹒首 次公開 回 應愿 自 委員 EE 蓮至一已－會報告，並表示從沒有辭職的念頭。 他 表示，整 件 事其實與科大無關﹒工程沒有大學參與﹒ 絞內教職員很多是來 自北 美， 他們也曾生活 於開放的社會 ，明白各人有不同意見，這才是民主 自由 。 他們 又 7 解事 實真徊，故對一些一從評，認為是政治上司空見慣的事情， 不會影響他們。外回到比平多囂支台賽牛
， λ ／ FRH 斗士－＝ BA ， 正降 1 『叫且、 、／－ E 一－． J1 他續說， 一一這班教職員來港前﹒已預計到建立 一 間新大學 ． 會遇到很大困難 ，尤 其香港社會有些一時候 十 分政治化 ， 他們若是他困難也不會來港 。 他認為﹒對科大學生來說﹒事件開始時﹒有些學生受影 響，學生感到無端端受攻擊 。 現在﹒學生再遇到顯似役評 時﹒也會一笑鐘之 。 吳家瑋表示 ，他完 全不同意外界指科大包女 。 港府最初 蟬情愿科大 ，十 六億元的工程費用預算只是參考城市建工第 一期作計算基礎 。 到正式勤工階段，由計算通脹到實際需 要 ﹒ 工程費 用 愿團的三十五慮四千八百萬元﹒平均每平芳米 比城市理工第二期工程高百分之四 。 他回 應跟自委員會報告說 ﹒ 參加校園設計比賽的第 一 名 ，沒有獲科大屆四委會接納為科大的校園設計，反而選 7 第 二名 。 事實上，評審小組共有五人 （ 一一一人宙間本地人﹒ En 兩 人分別面的澳洲科大校長和日本國際著名教授）．都分別選 最後奪第二及第三名的作品﹒並非一致選第 一名 。 吳家瑋亦 在交給 帳 目委員會的會 議紀錄中指出﹒ 他 於入 八年九月才到 任綾長，之前 一直在美國 ，他 會於八 七年 一 改科大籌委會議 在 港開會時﹒設邀請列席恰正開會的評審 小組，但只是唯一的一次﹒故他沒有運用過影智力 。冠軍作品像倉庫、馬房
會議紀錄又提到，籌委會十五名成員中，身壘曹大學及理 工教育資助委員會的李國能就繞過工程監督認為第二名的 作品面對問題會較少﹔評審小組主席昆為第二名作品的建 築師對監管工程有較高能力 。 當時身兼立法局議員的鄭湊 夠更直指第一名的設計像工廠、倉庫、或馬房 .. 需要大量 設計修改才能施工，會花費大量時間﹒增加開支 。 最後十 五 人不 記名投 票 ﹒ 一致通過採納第二名作 品 為彼園設計。 吳 家瑋接受 記者訪問時表 示，一該一宗事件 已過去，他個 人 而言﹒倘若彼舍不 實 用 ，不能聘請到好教 員﹒學生得不到 最好的教育 ，才是他 最大失望。次期工程開支低於預算
另外，科犬第二期工上月已完全竣工﹒可容七千名學生 的段國正式建成。情慨悉，馬會的開支低於預算工程費用的 三 十五 憶元 ，而且每 平方米戚本還低於城市理 工 第二期工 程。剩除的款項，馬會會交給港府 。 本報記者 ﹒麥法誠先生 作為籌委會成員之一，我認為我的職責是要從最 終使用者的角度去作考慮。在實用及美觀兩方面，我 都不覺得作品「 J 」可以滿足最終使用者的需要。這 個關鏈性的決策，必須由籌委會作出 。籌委會對這個 決定須負上長期的責任。我相信作出這樣的決定很不 容易 ， 並且會引致爭議，但是正確的 。 ﹒麥蘊利爵士 我從使用者角度來看，最終的結論是：作品 出 ，兩者在經常性費用上有多少差臣。 （評審小組承 認這方面難作評估，見32及127(a）節） 。兩者所需施 工時間相若 （見 114節） 。 工程監督認為作品「L 」 面對的問題會較少（見 126 節）。評審小組主席認為 作品 「 L 」的建築師對監管工程有較高能力（見 127(e）節） 。其他籌委會成員在幾次討論設計的會議 中所提出的意見， 都明顯地傾向探用作品「 L 」（見 42-47節， 65-73 節， 110-112 節， 116-7 節， 125,
128-9節） 。吳博士對採用作品 「 J 」 表示了有力的 看法和理由（見 109節） 。「 L 」優勝。何況兩個設計的估計成本相差僅百分之 二。比賽條款2.27 並沒有規定籌委會必須採用那一個 設計。 ﹒鄭漢鈞議員 由始至終，我都不滿意「冠軍設計」’原因是： （一）它不真有一個正式和明確的大門進口 。 （二）像個工廠、倉庫、或馬房 。沒有大學形 象。不具任何吸引力。 （三）日後擴建工程將為已落成的部份產生困 難。 （四）屬學院的研究部門和以全校為中心的研究 部門，聯系性很差。 （五）需要大量設計修改才能施工，會化費大量 時閉，增加開支。 （六）多用途大堂所處位置偏低。 （七）自成一角庭園式的學生宿舍，會帶來環保 問題，同時又沒能充分利用開朗的地盤和自然美景。 （八）建築成本與其他作品差不多，並不低於其 他作品 。 ﹒林李翹如女士 我決定楞棄作品「 J 」的原因有幾個：它的設計 我無法欣賞﹔照專家的意見來說，每期工程需要作出 廣泛的設計修改﹔此外，校舍不斷「搬遷調換」，會 造成長時期的滋擾。 ﹒鍾士元爵士 我的看法已列於會議紀錄裡﹔此外，校長楞棄冠 軍的許多見解，我與他有一致看法。 ﹒黃肅亮教授 我對作品「 J 」及作品「 L 」的設計細節，記憶 已不深刻，但清晰記得的是，我真誠相信亞軍作品確 比冠軍作品優勝。我認為選擇與冠軍票數相近的亞軍 作品，並沒有十分偏離評審小組的推薦。我認為吳博 士是使用者的代表，他對我有影響。我相信比賽的主 要目的在於吸取更多方面的意見，尤其是專家的意 見。這並不表示籌委會的職責可被取代﹔籌委會的責 任是：在考慮一切意見後，選出最優的設計。 ﹒侯頓先生 我的意見記載於 1987年 11 月 15 ‘ 20及21 日的會 議紀錄，大致是指出：我相信每期工程的銜接和搬 遷，會產生極大滋擾。此外，從審美的角度來說，這 建築群似乎適合一個工業圍之用，不適合一所大學。 ﹒吳家瑋教授 籌委會籌辦新大學時，必須對社會負責，包括作 出校園設計的最後決定。籌委會每一位成員都應該作 出個人的判斷。競賽冠軍已經獲得獎金。 比賽條款 2.27說明， 選擇適合的設計來建校是籌委會必須負起 的責任。我個人不主張採用作品「 J 」的各項理由， 已歸納在會議記錄裡，并附在本件的前部分裡 。 ﹒潘圓搶先生 我喜歡作品「 L 」的原因，己載於會議紀錄，現 引述如下： 11 月 15 日「潘先生間有沒有作品能夠擴建 到容許 10,000名全日制學生以上的規模 。 Roper先生 解釋這並非 『設計規劃j 要求條件﹔但作品 『L』 有 顧及此，預留了地盤以供教學設施沿高層地台向南擴 建。作品 『J J 雖然亦有些空地（現在用作沒有被包 括在 『設計規劃』 之內的科學園），但如何能配合它 自身的建築概念，並沒有講清楚。」我喜歡作品 「 L 」對處理擴建所具的靈活性。 「作品 『LJ 從最 低層至最高層安裝了電動樓梯﹔潘先生欣賞這處理方 法。 他並喜歡生活區設計的藝術效果 。 」「潘先生覺 察作品 『Lj 有五類型宿舍，它們都良好地利用了地 盤。 」 11 月 21 日「潛先生認為籌委會不是建築師﹔因 此，祇要施工時間和成本不超越所定範間，他們應該 考慮到大學的外觀。這方面，作品『 L』 有特色，秀 麗，兼有一個明確的大門進口。作品 『J 』 欠缺這 些﹔它的交通安排令人無法接受，並容易散播噪 音。」 ﹒陳天機教授 作為教育工作者，我的觀點是：校園必須有利於 整體範圍內人與人間的自由和自然交流，不應該被一 條長方形造成局限。 ﹒張佑啟教授 主席說冠軍得主毋須自動獲聘為工程建築師﹔他 對這個看法的法律根據頗為肯定。給一所大學來月， 作品「 L 」全面設計較具吸引力，這一點我同意其他 成員的看法。 ﹒戴賢範教授 我記得這個問題在您說及的會議紀錄及秘書處發 佈的正式新聞稿中，已有詳盡的記載，這些記載並已 獲得籌委會通過。 就此我重核了手上有關文件，覺得 沒什麼需要在此提出補充的。 口
