鴨仔山山友
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
工地之旅 1 – 6
A journey through contruction sites 1 – 6
邊緣公共空間研究
A research on an edge public space
The people of Duckling Hill by Parallel Lab
鴨仔山山友
鴨嘴山 基地地圖 DuckLing hill site map
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
2
魷魚灣亭
Yau Yu Wan Pavilion
仙女亭
Fairies’ Pavilion
第一平台
The First Platform
布殊花棚
BUS
Bush Garden
將軍澳安老服務大樓
SKH TKO Aged Care Complex
竹棚
Bamboo Shelter
BUS
綠雅亭
北
琳
寶
Luk Nga Pavilion
路 m La Po rth
No ad Ro
天梯口亭
Tin Tai Hau Pavilion
MTR 寶 琳 Po Lam
BUS
同樂亭
Tung Lok Pavilion BUS
區議會亭
坑口亭
Hang Hau Pavilion
WC
BUS
影業路 Ying Yip
Road
District Council pavilion
寶琳路 Po La
m Road
BUS
N orth Scale 1 : 4500
0
25
50
75 M
政府
Government
步行者
Walkers
護蔭和涼亭
Shelter and pavillion
遮雨棚
Rain Shelter
花園
Garden
下棋
Playing Chess
運動平台
Exercise platform
泉水
Spring water
觀景點
View point
資訊處
Info point
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
有關鴨仔山
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
九龍東的將軍澳是香港新市鎮，佔地 一千七百公頃，人口約三十九萬。在 將軍澳密集的高樓之中， 有一座高199 米的鴨仔山。 鴨仔山因其型狀似鴨而 得名，但隨年月去，這形狀已逐漸溶於 滿是高聳樓宇的都市之中。 估計有超過一千人不時來到鴨仔 他們都視鴨仔山為寧靜休憩的地 山 1， 方，男女老少在此晨運、鍛鍊、沉思、談 天論地， 甚至休閒得栽種一個小花園。 在人煙稠密的都市中， 鴨仔山是市民在 繁喧的生活中的隱世桃園。 一九八九年，大部分將軍澳居民搬 入公共屋邨， 而鴨仔山上也漸漸出現 了居民搭建和擺放的設備：幾個遮風擋 雨的避雨亭、通往山頂的樓梯、半山 的涼亭、 小花園、 長凳和垃圾桶。 這就像 居民搭建出屬於自己的家。 他們自發 設置社區設施反映出他們對這鴨仔山 有著深厚的感情。 而沒有對這山的生 態深入了解，也不能搭建能恰到好處。 他們的設施能顧及自然生態， 又能讓 自己和行山人士享用，甚至對研究山 景、 城市規劃、 設計和建築的愛好者和 從業員都有極大的價值。 但自零六年起，政府開始清理山友 Parallel·Lab 們的 「非法設施」 。 一三年， 的建築師和香港理工大學設計學院
3
About Duckling Hill
for an early morning walk, exercise, conversation, or contemplation, a place where people can tend a little garden. They see the hill as a buffer zone from the everyday crowds and sounds of the city. Over the years, and particularly since 1989, when most of the people moved into public housing At 199 meters high, Duckling Hill estates in Tseung Kwan O, the (鴨仔山) emerges from the comlocal residents have created sepact, standardized and high-rise veral rain and sun shelters, a set housing estates of Tseung Kwan of stairs up to the summit, paviO (將軍澳), a “ New Town ” in lions, small decorative gardens, eastern Kowloon, Hong Kong. shrines, benches and rubbish Although named for its duck-like bins – a soft appropriation of the shape, this shape has dissolved space with a strong feeling of with the ongoing and extensive home and identity. Their care in urbanization and reclamation of constructing the informal comthe “ town ”, an area of 1,738 hec- munity infrastructure reflects their tares with a population around intimate relationship with the 390,000 inhabitants. hill and an innate knowledge of Around one thousand people the hill's ecology. Their acts in come regularly to Duckling Hill 1. balance with the natural enviMost everyone – young and ronment, are of enormous value old alike – have come to see not only for themselves, but Duckling Hill as a restful place for visitors to the area, and for 的學生留意到這事件，並開始研究和 紀錄鴨仔山的情況。 他們的研究集中 於山友如何與鴨仔山互動和當中的含 意。 山友們、 西貢區議會、 將軍澳安老 服務中心、 理工大學設計學院的學生和 一眾研究員與Parallel·Lab的設計師 投入事件之中，有如一場深入的對話。 這刊物集合了這研究的日誌和討論， 希望令大家了解鴨仔山和對以人為本 的發展的價值。
researchers and practitioners in landscape, urban planning and architecture alike. Since 2006, the Government has been clearing the people’s “ illegal ” infrastructure and heritage. In 2013, architects from Parallel Lab and students from the School of Design of Hong Kong Polytechnic University became aware of this and began recording and studying the situation in the hill. The research has focused on both the physical and the metaphorical relationship the people have had with the hill. Dialogue also intensified between the walkers, Sai Kung District Council, Sheng Kung Hui Tseung Kwan O Aged Care Centre, students and researchers from Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the designers at Parallel Lab. This publication combines the research diaries and discussions and seeks to raise awareness of the value of people centered development.
有關鴨仔山
3
鴨仔山持份者的聲音
4
區議會亭－景觀
5, 9 6, 10 11, 13 12, 14 15 18 19 20 21, 25 22, 26 27 30 31 32 35 36 37 38 39
About Duckling Hill Duckling Hill voices District Council Pavilion – Landscape 天梯口亭－水 Tin Tai Hau Pavilion – Water
平行實驗室的研究日記
Parallel Lab’s research diary 竹棚－涼亭 Bamboo Shelter – Pavilions 布殊花棚－種植 Bush Garden – Planting
平行實驗室的研究日記
Parallel Lab’s research diary 第一平台－活動 The First Platform – Activities 仙女亭－風水 Fairies’ Pavilion – Feng Shui
平行實驗室的研究日記
Parallel Lab’s research diary
從鴨仔山中學習
填海地圖
The Duckling Hill learning
鳴謝
Reclamation map
Credits
1973
填海線
Reclamation line
1988 2014
1991
1988
1990 1991 1993
海
Sea
1993
1990
1973
將軍澳
Tseung Kwan O
鴨仔山
Duckling Hill
2014
往鴨仔山頂峰的沿途上，有六個山友 們的聚腳點。 設計學院的學生分析和 歸納出鴨仔山六個主題，並且以此創作 了一系列的繪圖。六個主題分別是：地 形、水土、設施、花園、生活、風水。
There are six main sites along the path up to the highest point of Duckling Hill, and the design student-researchers created a series of analytical drawings to highlight six according to the themes : topography, water, infrastructure, gardens, activities, and feng shui. Looking at them from both a micro and macro perspective they are focusing on usage and the people’s intervention as well as on the territorial organization.
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
鴨仔山持份者的聲音
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
這份刊物以四把不同的聲音集合而成， Mr Cheng and Mrs Ko, two social 以展示社會不同角色之觀點。 workers from the Sheng Kung
This publication is articulated around four voices representing the main actors and their views. 公眾
The Public 鴨仔山山友 The People of Duckling Hill 鴨仔山的山友大多是將軍澳六十至九 十歲的居民，約有二百人。儘管他們年 紀老邁而且行動不便， 他們卻願意花 上不少時間和心力，搭建和保養設施、 布置山林， 去為自己和社區創造一個 更好的環境。他們還堅持為自己的需 要發聲：在零九年， 他們與一群將軍 澳居民成立了將軍澳長者民生關注會。 DHP
The core of regular Duckling Hill walkers, Tseung Kwan O residents aged between sixty and ninety years old, numbers around two hundred people. Despite their age and physical limitations, many of them have undertaken considerable time and effort to create a better environment for themselves and their community by constructing infrastructure, decorating it, and maintaining it. They have been insistent on their right to express their needs, and in 2009, with a group of local residents they founded the Alliance Concerning the Livelihood of Elderly in Tsueng Kwan O.
4
Duckling Hill voices
Hui Tseung Kwan O Aged Care Complex, which is located near an entrance to Duckling Hill, have been active in supporting the needs of the elderly walkers. With professional training in elderly issues, they understand the population and have assisted them to take action for themselves.
the area overseen by the District Council is mostly rural, with seventy islands, but with some urbanised New Towns. Tseung Kwan O where Duckling Hill is located is one of them. The District Council deals with the social and economic activities of the District and acts as an intermediary between the people and upper-level Government.
設計 教育
政府
Government
HAD
民政事務總署
Home Affairs Department 民政事務總署是民政事務局的執行部 門，負責監督香港各區大型公共工程 和社區項目。
The Home Affairs Department, is the executive arm of the Home Affairs Bureau from The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. It is responsible for overseeing larger public works and community projects in urban and rural areas across Hong Kong.
environment and community. Ranging from different years and programs such as Interior & Environment, Product Design, Visual Communication, and Advertisement Design thirty-seven students conducted in-depth research on the hill and collaborated with the walkers and social workers.
Education
Design Parallel·Lab Parallel·Lab是一間由Caroline·Wüthrich、Géraldine·Borio成立的建 築設計和城市研究工作室。工作室策 動了一個實驗性項目， 提出山友、 大 學、 政府及私人機構共同合作。 他們籌 備了參與式設計的工作坊， 並以工作 室的名義向政府提出政府既有的設計 外的另一個設計可能性。 他們邀請了 Francis·Chan(Petros香港工程顧問) 及Yasuhiro·Kaneda(YKS工程師,日 本-巴黎)義務參與計劃的發展和評估。 PL
HKPU 香港理工大學設計學院 The School of Design, Hong
Kong Polytechnic University
用者為本設計研究室專門研究城市生 活環境。 研究室主任郭恩慈教授是香 港參與式設計的先導者， 她挑戰傳統設 計的模式和致力推動參與式設計的 工作坊。由學院教員兼註冊建築師 Géraldine·Borio帶領下，三十七位設 計學院學生參與了這個的研究。 多年 SD 來， 透過各個計劃， 例如景觀設計、 400合作坊和一個涼亭工作坊，他們 與山友和社工合作，對鴨仔山的環境 和社群進行了深入的研究。
This architectural design and urban research laboratory in Hong Kong, founded by Caroline Jackie Kwok is an Associate Pro- Wüthrich and Géraldine Borio, fessor at the School of Design initiated a pilot project that SKDC 西貢區區議會 and leader of the User Oriented proposes a partnership between Sai Kung District Council Research and Design Lab spethe Government, the walkers, 區議會負責處理地區性的社會和經濟 cializing in research on the urban the University and the private 活動， 並作為香港市民和上層政府之 living environment. Kwok is a sector. They led participatory 間的橋樑。 西貢區區議會管轄的地區太 forerunner of people centered design workshops with Duckling participatory design in Hong Kong Hill walkers and developed 多為鄉郊， 共十七個島嶼， 但亦有已 經發展的新市鎮如將軍澳， 而鴨仔山則 and questions traditional design design proposals on their behalf 位置此區域。這個區議會細分多個委 methods and facilitates particias an alternative to the Govern2 SW 將軍澳區的社工 員會， 負責西貢四十四萬人的福祉 。 patory design workshops. Géral- ment’s traditional proposals. For The District Council is one of the dine Borio is a Teaching Fellow Social workers that they invited two structural 鄭先生和柯姑娘都是聖公會將軍澳安 eighteenth Geographical districts at School of Design and a regis- engineers Francis Chan (Petros 老服務中心的社工。 她們的服務中心 part of The Hong Kong Special tered architect. She led various Consultant Engineers, Hong Kong) and Yasuhiro Kaneda (YKS 就在鴨仔山的入口附近。中心一直積 Administrative Region Governcourses such as Landscape 極滿足山友們的需要。 她們受過專業 Engineer, Japan-Paris) to partiment and located in the eastern Design, SD400 co-operative 訓練，明白老一輩的想法，也協助他們 territory of Kowloon. The District’s workshop and a pavilion works- cipate to the project development. 為自己爭取權利。 population is about 440,000 2 and hop on the topic of Duckling Hill’s
1
周一至五有超過四百人;周末則超過 一千人。周一至五來的通常是住在附近 的已退休中、老年人。周末到訪的則有來 自香港各區的市民與其孩童。 Over four hundred during the week, and over one thousand on the weekends. From Monday through Friday, they tend to be middle-aged or elderly people who live nearby – many are retired. On the weekends, the visitors come from all around Hong Kong and include families with children.
2 http://www.census2011.gov.hk/pdf/ fact_sheets/DC/Q00e.pdf 2011年人口普查–西貢區議會分區統計
便覽。
2011 Population Census – Fact Sheet for Sai Kung District Council District.
鴨仔山山友
HAD
香港1980 – 2015
區議會亭－景觀
行山人士所建的設施屬違法
一九八零時代， 行山人士自行在鴨仔山 設置未獲官方批准的設施。民政事務 總署隨後搜索附近一帶的地區， 並移除 有關的設施。政府表示行山人士違返 了房屋條例， 因為任何人士都嚴禁在政 府土地上建設私人建築物。山友們自 行搭建的長凳，帳篷，亭子全都被視為
5
3 李偉民律師在2012年七月17日出席 香港電台的節目時從政治、 哲學、 社會、 法 律方面探討僭建物。 4 香港政府律政司所制訂的建築物 條例。
3 非法僭建。李偉民律師解釋：「原來建 1 築物條例 (第123章)沒有就僭建物定 下法律定義。 僭建物其實泛指違例的或 要批准的建築工程。 任何建築工程未 經屋宇署批準都可能被視為 「僭建物」 ， 例如加建簷篷。 」
http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/ 6799165D2FEE3FA94825755E0033E532/ 439979DE5B92D2C9482575EE003EBFB 6/$FILE/CAP_123_e_b5.pdf 5
政府建造的鷹棚引起市民廣泛爭議。
涼亭的形態反映出人們十分了解四周 的環境。
6
區議會亭－景觀
行者自設的 步 山徑和涼亭
DHP
由於位於山腳附近，十分易於到達，址一 成為山友們最常聚集的地方。 除了政地 府建造的混凝土山徑外，這裡還有很多 通去不同地方的小路是由山友們自行建 造的。 山友們對地形的敏銳觸覺， 可見於他 們如何改動涼亭附近的地勢。 他們坪了 地，為種植花果而造了些小陽台，美化鴨 仔山。就可清楚明白山友們對山上自條 件， 如風、陽光、雨水的充分掌握。
府所建的山 政 徑和涼亭
政府設施未滿足山友需求
山友們對政府設施最大的批評是設施 不適合該地點，也不能滿足他們的需 要。因為他們唯有自行搭建各種設備。 一位不願透露名字的年長山友 說： 「政府設立的亭子並不實用。亭子 雖然可擋陽光，但避雨亭太長太窄， 要站在長凳上打開雨傘才能免受雨打。 作為行山人士，設施要求實用而非 美觀；作為長者，最擔心的是雨中身體 濕透，當他們走進有冷氣的地方，會 」 容易感冒甚至引發肺炎，可大可小 5。 另一山友說： 「政府指會在拆毀僭
建後重新建造五個避雨亭， 但最終只建 了兩個。在二零一零底，地區設施管 理委員會討論重建避雨亭的安排。 」在 一零年底，區議會地區設施管理委員 會討論重建涼亭的安排。 討論的共識是 山友同意重建的計劃後才移除原有 設施。 但在一一年一月， 委員會在未有諮 詢山友下便開始移走原有設施。 山友 們都感到不受尊重。 官僚的行政程序經常拖慢涼亭 的重建，意味著山友們只能多忍受一 段沒有避雨亭的日子 6。
DHP
山友反對清除鴨仔山設施
山友們並沒有視自設的涼亭為 「私人財 產」。他們是為了為了所有人而建這 些避雨亭， 好讓附近居民和遠來的行山 人士都能用來遮風擋雨。 一九八零年代，當時政府尚未有 計劃在鴨仔山興建任何設施，但山友 們已經開始在山上鋪設行山徑，設起 避雨亭，令所有人都輕鬆上山，在半 山歇息。他們是開拓者，他們將鴨仔山 開發成一個休憩娛樂的地方，但到今 天卻被指違反法律。 山友們對於一連串的拆卸難免感
到失望。 在零六和零七年的大規模拆卸 中，他們決定將憤慨化為行動。年近 九十歲的山友李先生和一眾將軍澳居 民發起反對清拆的聯署和請願。 數月 之間，他們收集了超過二百個簽名，並 提交予西貢區區議會。區議會堅持拆 卸，但承諾會重建涼亭。 一一年，區議會準備拆卸另一個 涼亭。 但這次， 反對的聯署收集了一千 零三十六個簽名，要求維持原有建築， 而且希望透過政府適當的資助和規劃， 將鴨仔山發展成一個文化公園。
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
District Council Pavilion – Landscape
6
The structures and facilities built by the walkers are illegal
3 Maurice Lee participated in a RTHK radio program on 17 July 2012 which explored the issue of illegal structures from political, philosophical, social and legal perspectives.
HAD
4 The Buildings Ordinance, established by The Department of Justice of the Hong Kong Government. http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/ 6799165D2FEE3FA94825755E0033E532/ 439979DE5B92D2C9482575EE003EBFB 6/$FILE/CAP_123_e_b5.pdf
In the 1980s, the walkers started to build informal infrastructure on Duckling Hill with their own resources, and the Home Affairs Department would subsequently inspect the area and remove what was built. The government claimed that the walkers were in violation of the Buildings Ordinance : it is forbidden to build any private structures on government land. Their “ do-it-yourself ” benches, shelters, and pavilions were consi-
5 The Eagle shelter built by the Government is widely contested by the people.
6 The shape of the shelter built by the people shows a deep understanding of the site’s condition.
dered as illegal structures. However lawyer Maurice Lee 3 explains, “ The term ‘ illegal structure ’ is not defined in the Buildings Ordinance 4 (Cap. 123). An illegal structure actually refers to unauthorized building works. Any kind of required building works not authorized by the Building Authority may be regarded as an illegal structure, even installing a canopy on the premises.”
District Council Pavilion – Landscape The Discrit Council Pavilion site is one of the most popular for the walkers because of its location at the bottom of the hill and consequently its ease of access. Besides the main concrete path built by the Government, there are many small paths built by the walkers connecting the site to other areas of the hill. Walkers’ sensitivity to the landscape is expressed in how they gently modify the topography around the shelters. They have flattened the ground in order to provide small terraces for planting flowers ; their contribution to “ embellish the hill.”
Government path and shelter
Government facilities are not suited to walkers’ needs
DHP
The main criticism from the people has been that the facilities built by the Government are not suited to the site and do not meet their needs ; therefore, the walkers had to build the various infrastructure themselves. One elderly walker says “ The shelters built by the Government are not practical at all. They’re fine as sun shelters, but when it’s raining, we have to stand on the bench and open our umbrellas to stay dry. The design of the shelter is too narrow and tall. As walkers, we emphasize functionality, not aesthetics, and as elders, one of the first things we worry about is getting wet in the rain 5.” Another elderly walker has said “ The Government once said
they would rebuild five shelters [after demolishing our structures] but only two were made.” At the end of 2010, the Facilities Management Committee discussed the arrangement of rebuilding the shelters. There was a consensus at the meeting that the rebuilding plan had to be approved before demolishing the existing shelters. However, in January 2011, the Committee started demolition without consultation with the walkers, who therefore felt mistreated and not respected. Bureaucratic administration procedures have often hindered the reconstruction of the cleared shelters and this has meant that walkers have had endure periods with no shelter from rain and sun 6.
alkers path W and shelter
The people objects to the decision to clear out the hill
DHP
The walkers haven’t seen the shelters they have built as “ private structures ” as they are built for everyone’s use, to provide each and every person – a local resident or a visitor – with protection from Hong Kong’s heavy rain and sun. In the 1980s, long before Government planning, they started making trails and shelters up Duckling Hill : they made the hill accessible for public use. These people were pioneers – they developed Duckling Hill as a recreational space, but then were told they had done something illegal. The walkers grew tired of the successive demolition of their shelters, and in 2006 and 2007, a period of large-scale demolition,
they turned their frustration into a petition against the removal of the shelters, a movement led by Tsueng Kwan O residents and a regular walker Mr Lee, who is 93 years old now. More than 200 signatures were collected in a few months. The Sai Kung District Council maintained that the structures had to be all removed but promised to replace them with new pavilions and shelters. In 2011, the story repeated itself. But this time 1036 signatures were collected and the people did not only request that the structures to be kept, but that Duckling Hill should be developed into a cultural park, with proper funding and planning.
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
7
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
8
鴨仔山山友
香港1980 – 2015
區議會亭－景觀
9
7
人們將涼亭增建了雨水收集設備。
預製的涼亭在實地設置後常有漏水的問 題。 這是因為其設計不能因應個別環境 天氣等條件來改動。因此，山友們往往在 這些預製的涼亭上加上回收起來的廣 告板來遮雨。不像政府的預製涼亭，山友 們的涼亭都是就地直接建造的。
PL
為何將山友重視鴨仔山?
將軍澳居民說他們在乎鴨仔山只是為 了將鴨仔山變得更美麗。 與千篇一律的將軍澳建築物相 比， 鴨仔山是個不拘一格的自由空間。 山友可以在此活屬於自己的人生。他 們設計了個性化的坐椅、 在山上寫詩。 他們用自製的容器收集雨水，栽種自己 他們積極又互助， 享受與外 的花園 7。 來人討論他們的「傑作」。透過構建一 個社區地方去營造社區歸屬感，他 們正賦予鴨仔山一個靈魂。 他們的一舉一動都會留在大家的 記憶當中，承傳下去。上山的梯級正 是陳先生和高先生當初花了三個月去 建的。一日一梯級，一共超過一百五十 級。上山的人對事耳熟能詳。 這地方曾是個荒野之地，四處充
滿攀藤類和藻類植物、樹和草叢。儘 管能遠眺迷人的海景，那時並沒有小 路通往山上，唯一能上到山頂的辦法 是靠游繩。然而，這個方法並不適合所 有人，因此有個男人決定製造樓梯上 山。他認識一名懂得建造各種類型東 西的男人，並從而得到很多混凝土和 用來加固的鋼筋。他開始造樓梯，一級 一級砌上去，每天完成一級。時間久 了，人們開始發現他所造的，並一起加 入。他們開始營造花園和涼亭等等， 而這就成了鴨仔山現在的樣子—一個 人們自發為人而建設的地方。 這梯級深深打動鴨仔山上的所有 人，梯級就表達著一切皆有可能。但對 政府來說， 這卻只是另一宗非法建築。
SW
社工向政府轉述居民心願
自一零年一月，鄭社工和柯社工幫居民 和政府及區議會交換意見。因為部分 山友不懂文字， 所以他們二人親身詢問， 收集了他們的意見。兩位社工亦與將 軍澳長者民生關注會定期見面，讓市民 表達訴求並參與制定長者福利政策。 會面每兩星期一次，每次約有七十人參 加。 對很多長者來說， 這就是他們第一次 參與政治。
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
District Council Pavilion – Landscape
10
7 A shelter customised by the people includes water collection system.
Prefabricated shelters often have to face water leakage problem when installed on-site because the design is not able to adjust to the site specific weather conditions. Therefore the walkers often customize them by adding left over advertisement billboards. Unlike the prefabricated Government shelters the walkers build their own shelters directly on-site.
Why do the walkers care so much about Duckling Hill ?
PL
The people of Duckling Hill say that their only goal is to make the hill a more beautiful place. In contrast to the uniformity of the New Town architecture, Duckling Hill is a place where the people can express themselves and their lives – they create individualized seating areas, write poetry, make customized watering cans for collecting rainwater, and plant flower gardens 7. By changing this place into a community area they are giving the hill a soul and creating a sense of belonging. Every intervention is recorded in the people’s memory, turning stories into heritage. The legend of Mr Chan and Mr Ko who took almost three months to build more than 150 steps up the hill, one stair per day, is known to every visitor. As Mr Cheng recalls : “ Once upon a time, the hill was a wild place, with vines, weeds, trees, and
no path to reach the top, where there was a wonderful view to the sea. The only way to get to the top was by using a rope. It was dangerous for the people, so one day, a man decided to make some stairs all the way up the hill. He knew there was a man who built all kinds of things, and so it was that he received plenty of concrete and iron bars for reinforcement. The man started to make the stairs, one by one. Every day he finished one step. As time went on, people noticed what he was doing and joined in. They started building gardens and pavilions and the like, and that is how Duckling Hill has become what it is, a place made by the people, for the people.” The stairs have deeply inspired the people of Duckling Hill, they are an emblem of what is possible. Yet to the government, the stairs are just another illegal structure.
Social workers help communicate people’s wishes
SW
Since January 2010, social workers Cheng and Ko have intervened by acting as a communication bridge with the Government and the Sai Kung District Council. They collected walkers’ opinions through a series of questions and set up discussion platforms with the Alliance Concerning the Livelihood of the Elderly in Tsueng Kwan O, allowing them to voice their needs and to participate in elderly welfare policy making. The meetings were held every two months at the Centre, with more than seventy people joining. For many of the elderly people, it was the first time in their lives they have had any such hands-on political experience.
鴨仔山山友
HKPU
香港1980 – 2015
天梯口亭－水
理工大學開始研究鴨仔山
一一年四月，為了提高香港社會和政府 對鴨仔山的關注， 社工們邀請香港理工 大學郭教授進行了深入的研究。 五月， 學生研究組訪問了七位年長 的鴨仔山山友， 並記錄了對鴨仔山的觀 察。九月，郭教授和她的團隊將研究 所得記錄在 《鴨仔山行徑:創造生活經驗 營造生活地方》 小冊子， 內容包括了山友 們和社工的想法和鴨仔山的歷史。 一三年，團隊將研究應用於參與
式設計工作坊 8， 與社工和設計師合作設 計出一套圖像化道具讓山友們表達 對行山徑的意見和鴨仔山設施的設計。 工作坊推動了公眾在創造空間和自主 設計的參與。 一百一十二位山友參與了這次工 作坊。他們以八至十人一組，在地圖 上提出山中各處應有的設施和活動。 這 種以圖像為本的直接視覺溝通形式， 就是郭教授和他的團隊開發出來的。
HAD
11
區議員對市民訴求表示關注
四位西貢區區議員以觀察者身份參加 這個設計工作坊， 透過這次經驗， 了解 山友們的需要。他們說： 「我們開始關注 行山人士的意見，並成立了專門改善設 施的設施管理委員會 。」 9
天梯口亭－水
行者自設的 步 山徑和涼亭
政 府所建的山 徑和涼亭
址二是由不同山友所種植的花園湊合而 成。除了兩張政府建造的長凳外，山友 們自行建造了避雨亭，以便每朝早運動 及種植後休息。 與山上其他自行建造的涼亭一樣， 這 個避雨亭具有回收雨水的重要作用， 以 利種植。回收起來的水被分配到花園的 不同角落。
雨水流
循環水流
雨水收集
8
郭教授所舉辦的參與式設計工作坊。
西貢區議會的地區設施管理委員會 負責監督小型工程項目， 例如避雨亭及 行人天橋。 這委員會的區議員有十四名是 全職區議員， 六名商人， 兩名社工， 一名 位工程公司董事， 一名立法會議員亦同時 兼任大學講師，一名英國註冊工程師， 一名退休人士，一名大學講師，一名中學 老師和一名物業管理技術主任。
9
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
Tin Tai Hau Pavilion – Water
12
Poly U researchers begin District Council members investigations about the hill start to show interest for the In order to raise awareness about elderly walkers, the social workers, people’s needs and concerns the Duckling Hill situation among and the history of Duckling Hill. HKPU
HAD
Hong Kong society – including the Government authorities – the social workers secured Professor Jackie Kwok of Hong Kong Polytechnic University in April 2011 to begin in-depth research. In May 2011, the student research team interviewed seven elderly walkers and recorded observations about the site. In September 2011, Kwok and her team documented the findings in Duckling Hill Hiking Path : Creating living experience, building living environment, a booklet that combined the reflections of the
In 2013, the team pushed the research up another level with a Participatory Design Workshop 8. The team collaborated with social workers and designers to create a set of visual tools for the walkers to express their opinions on the hiking trails and on the design of the facilities for Duckling Hill. The workshop promoted public engagement in place making and a democratic design process. The workshop was joined by 120 walkers. They proposed the best locations for various types of activities and facilities.
Four Sai Kung District Council members also joined the participatory design workshop as observers, and through the experience, came to understand the walkers’ needs. They said, “ We have become aware of the walkers’ wishes and already have formed a group called the Facilities Management Committee to take care of improving the facilities.” 9
Tin Tai Hau Pavilion – Water The Tin Tai Hau Pavilion site is comprised of a cluster of gardens made by the hikers. Beside the two Government benches the walkers have built their own covert shelter for resting and gathering after a busy morning of exercise or gardening. As with most of the illegal pavilions on the hill, this shelter is also fulfilling the important function of collecting rainwater for the garden’s irrigation. This water is then distributed to different corners of the gardens.
Collector of rain water
8 Participatory design workshop organized by Jackie Kwok.
9 The Facilities Management Committee, a group formed by the Sai Kung District Council, oversees small-scale construction projects in the District such as shelters and footbridges. The Committee includes fourteen DC members, six businessmen, two social workers, one construction company CEO, one Legislative Council Member who is also a part-time university lecturer, one engineer in the UK, one retired person, one university lecturer, one secondary school teacher, and one property management professional.
Recycled water flow
Rainwater flow
Government path and shelter
alkers path W and shelter
鴨仔山山友
SKDC
香港1980 – 2015
天梯口亭－水
13
新「社區重點項目計劃」
10 施政報告是由香港特首發布， 通常在 每年一月發表。 11 大白象泛指一項很貴重， 需要很高昂 費用維持， 但卻難有巨大經濟效益的資產。
一三年， 特首梁振英在施政報告 宣布推 出新的「社區重點項目計劃」 ，以加強 「地區行政計劃」。透過撥款一億元，為 地區帶來可預視並具持續性的效益。 計劃可包工程或非工程部分，但必須於 現屆區議會年度開展甚至完成。一四 年一月，西貢區區議會獲得了撥款並成 立了社區重點項目計劃委員會。 10
山友們所建造的涼亭普遍用剩餘的建築 材料或社區捐出來的物資來搭建。這 個涼亭混雜了鋼、膠和竹。一塊大膠板覆 蓋著頂部，一幅大橫額掛在側面，以免 亭內受雨水侵襲。由於涼亭頂部微微向 一邊斜下去，雨水能順勢向下流，並以 末端膠管道蒐集。回收起來的雨水儲存 在地底裡的一個水缸或者膠樽，以便分 發到花園。 本地人相信山水既潔淨又健康。因 此，他們都帶膠管和水桶來收集山水。 他們在自然或混凝土集水管道口設立了 幾個收集點， 這些收集點大多位於鴨仔 山東南面近入口的地方。有些山友會將 收集起來的水從這裡運送到山的其他 位置。當水源充足時，人們更會把山水入 樽帶回家喝。 有人曾把鴨仔山的水帶往 化驗所檢驗，證實這些水是十分潔淨，可 用來喝。雖然礦物質成分太多，但用來泡 茶還是很理想。
雨水收集
時鐘
集水處
DHP
天然水通道
凝土水 混 通道
想要對公共設施的話語權
一三年七月起，聯盟不斷表達對鴨仔山 沒有公眾咨詢的政府支出 「社區重點項目計劃」的意見。他們嘗 多年來爭取鴨仔山有更好設施，市民 去數年積極投入和向政府施加的壓力， 和將軍澳的社工都想鴨仔山早日變 政府最終接納他們的意見。一三年， 試去信並與區議會議員會面，參加參與 成文化公園，讓市民能享受自然和文 鴨仔山正式成為西貢區的「社區重點 化，遠離都市生活的喧囂和擾攘。 他 項目計劃」。但這計劃卻很快引起爭 式設計工作坊。他們因為政府諮詢不 們視「社區重點項目計劃」為達成這個 議：政府在零六年至一三年間已經投 願望的機會。 入不少資源移除舊有建築，並重建 足而抗議，擔心計劃會最終淪為「大白 山友們將他們的意見透過區議 之，現在卻又投放更多的公帑在同一 會議員向政府反映。有賴山友在過 項目之中。 象」工程。 DHP
11
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
14
Tin Tai Hau Pavilion – Water
A 100 mio grant is awarded for the Signature Project
10 The goal of the Signature Project Scheme is mainly to provide a larger amount of resources to the District Council for implementing large-scale and sustainable project to address the needs of the districts.
SKDC
11 A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness.
In 2013, Hong Kong’s leader, Chief Excutive Chun-ying Leung, announced the new Signature Project Scheme in his Policy Address. This Scheme was designed to enhance the District Administration Scheme by introducing a $100,000,000 grant, enough to bring to each district a visible and lasting impact. In January 2014 Duckling Hill was awarded as the Sai Kung District Council’s Signature Project and a Signature Project Committee was formed. 10
The walkers’ shelters are usually made out of leftover construction materials and resources donated by the community. The structure is a mix of steel, plastic and bamboo. A big plastic panel covers the roof and banners protect the sides of the shelter. As it is slightly sloped, rainwater can flow down and be collected through pipes. This water is then stored into an underground water tank or in plastic bottles for the ease of distribution to the gardens. The locals believe that the water from the mountain is clean and good for their health. So they use pipes and buckets to collect water from the hill. They installed a few collection points where the natural or concrete water catchment channels end. These collection points are mostly located at the south-east side of Duckling Hill, near to the entry points. Some hikers transport this collected water to other parts of the hill for their gardens. When the water is sufficient, people even carry bottles of water back home for drinking. Some hikers even brought the water to a laboratory for analysis and it was proven that the water from Duckling Hill is definitely clean enough to drink but is slightly heavy in minerals and good for making healthy tea.
Concrete water channel
Natural water channel
ater W catchment
Clock
Collector of rain water
Government spends money The walkers want to have without public consultation their say on the public facilities
DHP
With so many years of effort for better facilities on Duckling Hill, the public and social workers of Tseung Kwan O wanted to speed up the progress of turning Duckling Hill into a cultural park, a place where people could enjoy nature and culture, away from the limitations and hustle and bustle of urban life. They saw the Signature Project Scheme as an opportunity. The walkers tried to voice their opinions to the Government through their District Council
DHP
members. Thanks to the active involvement of the elders in the past few years and the pressure created towards the Government, their opinions were listened. Duckling Hill became a part of the Signature Project in Sai Kung District. Yet it soon became a controversy ; a significant amount of money had already been used from 2006 to 2013 to remove the “ illegal ” shelters of Duckling Hill and build Government approved ones, and now the question is how Government will use the money ?
Since July 2013, The Alliance has been expressing their views on the Signature Project on Duckling Hill facilities. They have been writing letters, meeting with District Council members and joining the Participatory Design Workshop. They, and others, have been protesting because of insufficient public consultation ; they worry that the project will turn into another “ white elephant .” 11
鴨仔山山友
香港1980 – 2015
平行實驗室的研究日記
15
12 址一上的政府避雨亭。
13 址六上的兩張長椅子。
PL
山友應付政府的各種對策
一四年十月， 我們第七次回到址一， 發現 三個涼亭中， 只有政府建的一個仍在 12。 另外兩個山友們搭建的已經被移走。 神奇的是在三個月後，其中一個 的涼亭重新出現，與原來的近乎一 樣。原來山友們將亭子拆除並暫時移 走，當政府取消了正式的清拆令後， 他們又將涼亭還原。 這讓山友們不用與政府正面衝 突， 但能保留涼亭。政府緩慢的官僚 程序，不及普羅大眾的效率和適應力， 令山友可以預測政府的行動， 退而避 之。期後幾年間，政府多次要移除這些 的凉亭， 但山友們往往隨即將涼亭重 建。他們甚至將政府建造的避雨亭改 建， 改善用途， 加大空間。 當有另一次 的清拆安排，他們又會暫時移除這些 加建物。 鴨仔山隨時間變遷，涼亭消失又 重現，樹木生長和移離。空間不斷被 重塑，每次都帶來進步和改善。山景亦 在轉變。廢置的植物被搬到山頂，重 獲新生。它們可能取代了山上原有的 植物，成為山中小動物新的鄰居。 一四年四至五月，山友在址六的 山頂花園建了擋土牆：用十數塊大石
和至少十五株植物建了一個花園。要 在原有的植物中找出它們並不容易， 有 心者可以沿路上山仔細看看。 在山路半途，址六有二排新的長 長凳的平台石屎為底， 磚瓦為面。 凳 13。 物料和長闊比例就如政府所建的一樣。 但若細心一看， 長凳比平常的稍矮一 些，手造的痕跡仍在。這也是山友們帶 著水泥、磚瓦、木模，辛苦上山而建的。 自發搭建的設施和政府搭建的 設施最大分別並非設施本身，而是設 施的位置。 山友建的長凳不會擱在山 路中間，而是刻意伴在山路兩旁，兩排 長凳約一米距離，坐向最佳景致，讓 遊人可以坐在兩旁談天論地，亦能在 樹蔭下乘涼。 山友們自律緊守規則，避免政府 提出對設施安全、持久和保養的質 疑。這就是山友們面對政府表現的力 量、彈性、耐力。 山友們最終希望政府能迎合大眾 的需要。 他們重視的只是一處能坐於 山頂、一處行山後能休息、一處能遮光 擋雨、一處能看到最美的山和海、一處 能欣賞親自栽種的花園的地方。
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
16
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
17
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
Parallel Lab’s research diary
18
12 Government shelters on site 1.
13 Two new benches on site 6.
All along the years Duckling Hill’s people have developed a series of tactics to deal with the Government’s restrictions
PL
In October 2014, we returned for the seventh time to site 1 and noticed that out of three shelters, only the Government’s one remained 12. The two structures made by the walkers had gone. What was surprising was that, three months later, one almost identical shelter made by the walkers reappeared. The walkers had voluntarily dismantled all the shelter and temporarily stored the materials away for a while, waiting for the official clearance notice from the Government to be removed before they put the shelter back in its original location. This strategy has proven to be a powerful yet soft resistance. The tactic directly plays with the predictability of the Government’s bureaucratic procedures, and efficiently taps into the people’s fast operational capacity and easy adaptation to the circumstances at hand. Over the years, no matter how many times the Government removed the “ unauthorized ” shelters, the people never gave up reconstructing their own shelters. They would also then modify Government-made shelters to optimize the function and space. They would temporarily remove their structures themselves when they knew a clearance would soon be taking place. There are always changes in Duckling Hill. Shelters seem to appear and disappear ; trees planted or moved to another location. The space seems to be created again every day, with improvements and adjustments. The landscape changes too. Plants are rescued from dumpsters and find a new life on the hilltop, maybe replacing native flora and providing something exotic for the native fauna. Between May and April 2014, the walkers built a retaining wall for the hilltop garden on site 6 remodeling the area with a dozen or so heavy rocks,
and planting at least fifteen plants. Identifying new species among the native ones requires careful observation – adding interest it can be a game one plays along a walk up the hill. On site 6 in the middle of this “ game ,” we identified two new benches 13 . Set on a brick platform, the base is made of concrete and the top surface of tiles. The materiality and proportions are almost identical to the Government made benches, but upon closer examination, it is evident that they are slightly lower and made by hand. Which of the walkers built the wooden mold, and carried the cement, water, tiles, and mortar to the highest point of the hill ? The most significant difference between the people-made and the Government-made infrastructure is not the structure itself, but its location. Instead of a single bench placed directly on the path, the two benches made by the walkers for instance are set back from the path and are about one meter apart and best oriented to appreciate the view. This deliberate placement is more conducive for conversation among walkers and visitors, and it allows them to enjoy the breeze and shade provided by the trees there. The people followed the rules so closely, anticipating the Government’s arguments for security, durability, and maintenance. Their only goal is that the Government provides the public with what they need but not to put forward their design. A humbling lesson for designers. What matters to them is a place to sit at the hilltop, a place to rest after a long hike, a place to feel the breeze sheltered from the sun and rain, a place where everyone can enjoy one of the best views of the mountains and sea, and – maybe the icing on the cake – a place to view the garden they have built.
鴨仔山山友
HKPU
香港1980 – 2015
竹棚－涼亭
19
重思改善社會的管治手法
山友們關心的是他們的福利和生活質 素， 但政府目光只聚焦於經濟發展， 施行 的政策經常無法回應市民的真正需要。 據郭教授所言，最低下的階層擁 有很少甚至沒有機會參與政策制定
的過程。她質疑這種由上而下制定政 策的過程應否可取，還是應該邀請 公眾參與當中的過程，去讓他們建設 心目中理想的社區和環境。
竹棚－涼亭
行者自設的 步 山徑和涼亭
府所建的山 政 徑和涼亭
步行者
政府與山友們對景觀設計所持的不同態 度，在這個地方顯而易見。政府建造的 山徑是筆直的、直達不同區域的；而山友 們建造的則是更有趣的、鼓勵漫步的彎 曲小徑。 政府在這山徑上建造的二人鷹棚，無 疑是個直接了當行山者對休憩設施的 要求。然而，鷹棚所見的位置與行人人流 產生衝突，令人感覺不舒適。 就在幾米範圍之內，山友們建造的 涼亭有天然遮蔭，並以彎曲的小泥路 與周邊地方連接起來，尊重這地方的隱 蔽性。這地方的樹多年來被風吹到形成 現在的模樣。它們由東生長至西面，形成 每朝為山友們的天然遮蔭處。 為善用這 自然優勢， 山友建造了一個竹棚來劃定聚 集的空間。他們把多餘的樹枝剪掉，並 在竹棚上方用繩把樹枝綁好， 以免樹枝向 棚內生長。而在座位和地面上，則用上了 整潔而耐用的水泥塗層。 如今， 山友們在樹蔭下休息、 談天、 抽 菸。 這個涼亭可以容納7人圍圈坐， 鼓勵 人與人之間更良好的溝通。 透過定期修剪 樹枝的過程， 他們又可以再次與自然循環 連接起來。
路徑
剪刀
PL
絕大部分的公共設施設計 到落實都在政府內部完成
PL
當區議會同意建避雨亭，民政事務總 署有負責落實並建造之。在一般情 況，民政事務總署會將一切外判予知 名大公司， 所有設施的設計會由它負 責。這個做法沒有引入公平競爭，無法 確保設計能細心回應市民需要和實 際情況，令人質疑這如何能推動政府 採納一個合適的設計。 香港的所有公共設施都由政府規 劃、實行和管理，她主要考慮就是效
率和安全。但是設計並不應只為解決 問題，更應該有一套宏觀的目光，將 人、實際情況、空間質素、功能、文化和 客觀限制加以考慮。同時，設計者亦 不只為設計成品，而是去綜合，包括政 府和用家，各持份者的意見。但獨立 的設計公司不在政府考慮之列，亦較 少機會參與相關過程，只有大型發展 商或知名公司才被政府選中。
繩
將持份者結集的先導計劃
Parallel · Lab 有志擔當中間人角色，並 在一三年提出一個先·導計劃， 幫助公 眾、政府、教育機構和私人企業四者互 相合作，讓公眾對公共建設和設施提 出意見，從而令設計得以回應市民的意 見，並最終給予鴨仔山公共空間的地 位。先導計劃包括一系列的工作坊和研 究，讓山友們有更宏觀的目光和讓研究 者獲得鴨仔山和山友的背景資料。
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
20
Bamboo Shelter – Pavilions
Rethinking Government’s traditional approach to design
HKPU
While the Government often focuses on economic development, the Hong Kong public and the walkers of Duckling Hill are usually more concerned about their welfare and improving their quality of life. This results in a frequent mismatch between policies announced by Government and the true needs of the public.
According to Professor Kwok, most underprivileged groups have little or no entry points to join any political decision making process. She asks if this top-down practice of making policies should continue, or if the public should be actively involved and invited to participate in and building their desired community and environment.
Bamboo Shelter – Pavilions The Government and walkers different approach towards landscape design is made very clear on this site. Where the Government favours a strait and direct hiking path, the walkers’ path encourages a more enjoyable wandering and strolling. The two people’s “ eagle shelter ” built by the Government along the path is a straightforward answer for a resting place but is in conflict with the pedestrian flux and makes people uncomfortable. Just a few meters beside, the naturally shaded pavilion is connected to the different areas by a curvy mud path that respects the intimacy of the site. Over the years, the trees of this site have been shaped by the wind. They grew from east to west, forming a natural shaded area for the hikers in the mornings. To make use of this natural benefit, the walkers build a framework in bamboo to define a gathering space underneath. They trim-med off the excessive branches and tied them up by ropes on top of the pavilion to prevent branches to grow inside. For a clean finish and permanence the seats and floor were poured in cement. Nowadays, walkers rest, chitchat and smoke under the tree shade. Able to host seven people sitting in a circle and this larger pavilion promotes better communication between people. Through the process of regularly trimming the tree branches they can re-connect with the natural cycle.
Rope
Scissors
Circulation
Walkers
Government path and shelter
alkers path W and shelter
A pilot project is proposed to bring the parties together
PL
Government public infrastructures are done in-house
PL
After the District Council agreed to build shelters, the Home Affairs Department assumed the role of implementing and constructing them. Normally, all the facilities are designed in house : the Home Affairs Department contracts one large construction firm to build everything. This practice makes people question how motivated the Government is to achieve suitable designs for the public : introducing fair competition can ensure that designs carefully address people’s needs and the context. In Hong Kong, all public facilities are planned, implemented, and managed by the Government,
whose main concern seems to be efficiency and safety. Yet, design should not be perceived just as problem solving. It should have an overall vision which takes into account the people and their context, spatial qualities, usages, cultures, as well as pragmatic constraints. Moreover, the role of the designer is not limited to proposing design solutions but to connecting the different parties, such as the Government and the users. Nevertheless, independent design firms are not considered by the Hong Kong Government and are therefore less likely to be able to participate in the process.
Aware of their potential intermediary role, Parallel Lab proposed a pilot project in 2013 to foster collaboration among the public, Government, educational institutes, and the private sector ; to assist the public to give opinions on public architecture or facilities and then integrating their comments into the design ; and to give Duckling Hill the status of a public space. The pilot project included discussions with the walkers and District Council members on the possibility to re-think the traditional project implementation model defined by the Hong Kong Government. A series of workshops and researches was organized for the walkers to strategize their vision.
鴨仔山山友
香港1980 – 2015
布殊花棚－種植
自一九八零年代將軍澳成 為新市鎮發展政策之一員
21
14 填海前形似鴨仔的海岸線。
HKG
新市鎮的發展是香港政府主動提出的 政策，以「解決人口增加問題，分散集 中於原有市中心的人口以改善生活環 境。[…]一九七二年推出新市鎮發展 計劃後，香港共發展了九個新市鎮。計 劃起初的目標是為頭三個新市鎮： 荃灣、 沙田和屯門約一百八十萬人口提 供住屋。當時香港人口四百二十萬，
至今已達七百三十萬。[…]所有新市鎮 配置了公共和私人房屋，以及主要的 基礎建設和社區設施。新市鎮的對外 交通現在包括鐵路和公路。 […]將軍澳 建於八十至九十年代，是第三代新市 鎮。 將軍澳發展總面積一千七百三十 八公頃，規劃人口四十五萬。現今人口 約三百八十六萬。」(2014 年十二月)
布殊花棚－種植
19/02/2014
PL
步 行者徑
政府徑
本土植物
非本土植物
地址四的花園是由兩位熱心的山友設計、 建造和打理。他們志在令山頂上這個 矚目的位置變成一個可以欣賞風景的合 適之處。為了坪地和提供種植的地方， 他們其中一人會定期將在建築地盤拾到 的石頭，從山腳背到山頂。另一位山友 則從附近商場的廢物箱內拯救被遺棄了 的植物，並以自己對種植的全面知識來 創造了這個和諧的花園。這些植物對山 嶺來說是新移民，為鴨仔山本來的植被 帶來新鮮有趣、將會隨年月互相影響的 混合。 山友種植目的是美化，而政府種植 卻是為了維持生態平衡。比如說，政府 在山上種的桉樹會在土壤中釋放一種化 學物來遏止蕨類植物的生長。 日復一日， 這兩名山友仍定期探望他 們的花園，並悉心地灌溉植物。就如山 上其他花園一樣，他們不停改動花園的 布局， 讓它成為更好的消遣和休息的地方。
08/04/2014
鴨仔山－香港發展的縮影
將軍澳過去三十年的發展反映了香港 都市擴張的方向。 為減輕人口密集問 題，規劃中的新市鎮如衛星般散落在 舊市鎮周圍。 高效率的交通網絡將新 市鎮和舊市鎮連接。每一個新市鎮都 由一個總體規劃複製出來：市鎮由高 聳的樓房組成，在地面的闊路讓車輛 出入，行人天橋網絡將住所、商場和鐵 路站連接。
香港多山， 填海所得的土地經常成為新 市鎮建設的一部分 14。將軍澳一帶山 形陡斜，鴨仔山附近難作發展。但只在 三十年間， 將軍澳就由灣伴村落變成人 口三十八萬六千的小城市。 人口高速增長的同時，市民對鴨 仔山的倚戀依舊。市民繼續珍惜鴨仔 山上自由的空間。
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
14 The duck like shore’s shape before Tseung Kwan O land reclamation.
Bush Garden – Planting
22
Since the 1980s Tseung Kwan O became part of the New Town development HKG
New Town development is an initiative of the Hong Kong Government to “ cope with the increase in population and to improve the living environment by decentralizing the population from the over crowded urban districts. […] Hong Kong has developed nine new towns since the initiation of its New Town Development Program in 1973. The target at the commencement of the New Town Development Program was to provide housing for about 1,8 million people in the first three new towns, namely, Tsuen Wan, Sha Tin and Tuen Mun.The population of Hong
Kong at that time was about 4,2 million. It is now about 7,3 million. [...] All the new towns accommodate public and private housing supported by essential infrastructure and community facilities. External transport links are developed with all new towns now served by rail links to the urban area and road links to the adjacent districts. […] Tseung Kwan O was built in the 1980s and 1990s and is part of the third generation of New Town. The total development area of Tseung Kwan O is about 1,738 hectares for a planned population of 450,000.”
Bush Garden – Planting The Bush Garden site is designed, built and managed by two dedicated walkers who aim to transform this exposed site at the top of the hill into an agreeable place to enjoy the view. In order to level the ground and to provide planting areas one of them regularly carries on his back rocks from the construction sites at the bottom of the hill. The other walker rescues plants found in the shopping malls’ rubbish bin and uses his extensive planting knowledge to create a harmonious floral park. The consequence of this new import to the site is an interesting mix of native and non-native species that will co-influence each other along the years. However, the walkers’ purpose is mainly decoration while the Government’s nonnative planting is often used for regulating the eco-system. For instance, the Government planted eucalyptus trees which release a chemical to the soil that suppresses the growth of wild species like ferns. Day by day, the engineers regularly visit their garden and irrigate plants carefully.
08/04/2014
Non-native plants
Navite plants
Government path
Walkers path
19/02/2014
Duckling Hill epitomizes the development of Hong Kong
PL
Tseung Kwan O’s development in the last thirty years reflects the direction of the urban expansion of Hong Kong. To ease the density of the city centres, the New Towns were planned from scratch in satellite locations. Well connected to the older urban parts by an efficient network of transportation infrastructure, each New Town was primarily constituted by high-rise residential towers, almost all identically replicated in a master plan : wide streets for cars on the ground level and a network of elevated pedestrian pathways above that connect the podium of the residential towers to the ubiquitous shopping mall and to the metro.
Because of the mountainous topography of Hong Kong, reclaiming land from the sea 14 has often been part of the New Town construction, but due to the steep topography of the Tseung Kwan O site, Duckling Hill was spared. However, in just three decades, Tseung Kwan O has changed from a cluster of small villages around a bay into a community of 390,000 people, the population of a small city. Yet, the people’s interest in connection to Duckling Hill has kept pace with the rapid population growth : the residents have continued to value the free access to the freedom of the beautiful hill.
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
23
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
24
鴨仔山山友
HKPU
香港1980 – 2015
學生研究山友與山的關係
一四年初， 十二個修讀景觀設計的學生 對鴨仔山進行了不同的研究， 例如山 景、人、政府的設計、風水和集水。學生 的目標是發展一套能深入思考鴨仔 山與人的關係的框架。這些研究和比 較分析展示了人為對鴨仔山的影響 15。 政府雖以實用為原則來建設基礎 設施， 但研究卻認為山友的設計包含 了對地方的仔細了解和對賦予鴨仔山
行山徑
DHP PL HKPU
布殊花棚－種植
施工場地
步行者花園
一個靈魂的盼望。 通過訪問，學生見識到在自製集 水器、在涼亭各種的固定裝置、在長 凳準確的位置、在修補過的破椅背後 都是互相關懷的精神和對表達自己、 追求舒適的自由的追求。明顯的是，山 友們照料鴨仔山，就如照料自己的 家：一處可以放鬆自己、互相聯繫和感 受自然的地方。
公共垃圾處
本土植物
非本土植物
共同參與涼亭設計工作坊
二零一四年六月底，Parallel·Lab、理 工大學和將軍澳安老服務中心社工 在中心舉辦了八日的涼亭設計工作坊 16。 工作坊是研究的第二階段。 工作坊地點貼心地安排在鴨仔山 附近。 工作坊是為了告訴政府為何市 民的知識和能力是設計公共設施的基 本考慮。 工作坊亦是為了展示設計如 何可以達至人和自然的平衡， 同時又能 滿足政府的要求。 研究員和山友設計了一座涼座－ 一種山上必要的設施。通過合作，學
生明白山友最初設計涼亭的方法，也 體會到設計如何成為傳達想法和質疑 謬誤的工具。 事實上，涼座是引起討論的工具。 山友表達他們的意見， 並列出涼亭最 重要的元素。工作坊完結前，他們完成 了一個用家為本的視覺介紹，包括一 個一比五十的模型，展示鴨仔山的其 中一部分。模型由幾百摺紙組成，而 摺紙是由十個山友在上一日早上的工 作坊製作的。
25
15 園景學學生正訪問山友。
16 涼亭設計工作坊。
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
15 Landscape design students interviewing the walkers.
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
26
Bush Garden – Planting
Landscape Design students examined the relationship between people and the hill
HKPU
16 Pavilion design workshop.
In January 2014, a group of twentytwo landscape design students conducted various research projects in Duckling Hill to develop an in-depth understanding of the relationship between the walkers and their hill. Their studies and the comparative analysis revealed the overall impact that human hands have made at the site. Whereas the Government approaches infrastructure in a pragmatic way, the researches show that
Non-native plants
Navite plants
Public refuse point
the walkers’ design decisions have been the result of an intimate understanding of the site’s condition and of wanting to give the hill a spirit and soul. Through the interviews 15 , students have come to acknowledge that behind each “ illegal ” construction is a sense of care for each other and their needs, and a sense of freedom for each person. The walkers maintain the hill as if it is their personal space.
alkers’ W gardens
Construction site
Hiking path
Students and elderly joined Pavilion Design Workshop DHP PL HKPU
In June 2014, an eight-day pavilion design workshop 16 was organized by Parallel Lab, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and social workers at the Sheng Kung Hui Tseung Kwan O Aged Care Complex, and hosted at the Centre. The workshop, conveniently and appropriately held near the hill, sought to show the Government why the knowledge and competencies of the users are a fundamental key to consider in the design of public facilities.The workshop also sought to demonstrate how design can achieve an equilibrium between nature and a community, while also meeting the
Government’s requirements. The student-researchers and the walkers developed a pavilion, one of the required facilities for the hill. Through the collaboration process, students came to understand the walkers’ design methodology from the inside. They could experience how design can be a tool for communicating an idea to the authorities as well as for questioning a point of view. The pavilion was in fact a tool for engaging discussion. The walkers expressed their opinions and came up with a list of priority needs for the pavilion.
鴨仔山山友
香港1980 – 2015
平行實驗室的研究日記
27
17 鐘與日曆。
18 新市鎮同質化。
時鐘與日曆-把公共空間變成 適合人們互動的一種低調方式
PL
除了創新的集水器和無處不在的椅子 外，在每個避雨亭中都有一個時鐘和 背後原因各有說法：有的說 一個日曆 17。 是為了提醒自己與人飲茶的約會，有 的說幫助他們溝通和互動。 今時今日， 山 友們都有自己的手錶或智能電話，時 鐘和日曆就顯得多餘。 也許這是為了讓 山友們找涼亭找到家的感覺，那種給 予他們安全和紮實的感覺：此時此刻， 與 鴨仔山並在。 也許這也是市民對活在稠密都市 最直接的回應。 香港家庭住屋平均只 有四十五平方米， 室內空間不足以作社 交互動， 這解釋了大部分香港人不會在 家與朋友聚會。 公共空間理應讓人決定使用的方 法， 否則這只是一個陌生的空間。 在短 短數十年密集起來的新市鎮中人以至
其餘香港人，看來都需要將城市形態 重新以人為單位，以非只視為一個冷 冰冰的城市。 鴨仔山上的每一個人都有這個機 會為山的建設而付出努力。 部分人建 造新的設施，部分人照料這些長凳亭 子，就像是建設和照料自己的家具般。 每日有人都掃把清理地方， 像是清理家 前的門口。這是一處個人與社群、本 土與大眾和人工與自然並存的地方。 時鐘和日曆是人對鴨仔山的一 部分重塑， 是抗議在將軍澳的細小住屋 時鐘和日曆並非 沒有機會表達自己 18。 山中的點綴，而是一個現象：人將空間 重新塑造他們約會、 互動的地方。 這些 細節刻劃了樂於溝通的香港人形象：廣 東話仍充滿著活力和玩味。 這些細節 亦說明香港是個重功能和實用的地方。
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
28
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
29
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
Parallel Lab’s research diary
30
17 A clock and a calendar.
18 New town homogeneity.
Clocks and Calendars are a pretext for human interactions and appropriation of the space PL
Along with the ingenious hand made water cans and the ubiquitous chair, and water collectors system, each shelter also houses a clock and a calendar 17. When asked why, the walkers responded differently : for not missing their tea meeting and for agreeing on the next meeting date – the clock and calendar support their communication and interaction. Yet these days, almost all of the walkers either have a watch or a smartphone, so maybe there is something more ? Perhaps the personal items are a way to make the walkers feel that their shelters are like home, a presence of something that gives reassurance, a sense of something solid – today is here, the moment is here. Perhaps it is a direct response to the dense environment the walkers live in. When home for a Hong Kong family is an average of forty-five square meters, the interior space leaves little or no space for social interaction – a significant proportion of the Hong Kong population does not host gatherings with friends at their home. When public space does not allow appropriation, people do not feel comfortable. People in the suddenly dense New Towns, and people across Hong Kong as a whole, seem to feel the need to bring
back the human scale in the city. Nearly everyone in the community of Duckling Hill has contributed to, or has been invited to contribute, to the embellishment of the area. Some people have built structures with their own hands while others have helped take care of the benches and shelters and pavilions, as if the items were in their own homes. Every day, people clean the site with a bamboo brush, like a front step of a house. It is a curious blend of the personal and the communal, the domestic and the public, and the built world and the natural one. Clocks and calendars are part of the people’s strong appropriation of Duckling Hill. A definite response to the homogenized 18 urban environment of Tsueng Kwan O. The clock and a calendar have nothing to do with the embellishment of the hill : it’s a phenomenon of appropriation that helps a place become a meeting place, an interactive place. The detail speaks of Hong Kong’s identity as a place where people like to communicate : the Cantonese language is alive with energy and playfulness. The detail speaks of Hong Kong as a place of function and pragmatism. This is the place and moment.
鴨仔山山友
香港1980 – 2015
第一平台－活動
區議會議員邀請工作坊的 參加者到官方的常務會議
SKDC
涼亭設計工作坊於二零一四年六月二 十八日完結。 當日有五位西貢區區議 會和約六十個鴨仔山社區代表參與， 而 且還有一個驚喜。 區議會認同工作坊 的價值值和山友、學生、設計師及將軍 澳居民的努力， 同意將建造新設施的程
HKPU
發掘鴨仔山特點的工作坊
一四年九月至十一月，香港理工大學舉 辦了一個設計工作坊讓不同課程的 學生能面對真實的客戶：Francis·Chau 序暫緩 19。他們邀請Parallel·Lab根據 西貢區區議員和老人福利關注組的 學生的設計和山友的建議完成涼亭 社工。 工作坊以課堂形式模擬真實的個 的新設計。 他們亦承諾讓所有人參與七 案：有真實的客戶， 有特定的設計目的， 月十五日的區議會設施管理委員會的 有公眾的參與。 常務會議 20。 工作坊是為了讓鴨仔山成為將軍 澳地標， 發展一套營造鴨仔山地位的 策略，加強山友和大眾的溝通。由環境 設計到廣告， 不同設計領域的學生用
第一平台－活動
府徑和 政 平台
落葉
竹園
31
他們的專長去整理出一套完整的鴨仔 山論述。 計劃一方面是改善設施，如指示 牌、長凳和垃圾桶，令大家看到讓鴨 仔山成為一個真正的地標的可能。另 一方面改善區內外有關鴨仔山的宣 傳，例如印發小冊子和製作鴨仔山的 網頁，而這些都已經在進行當中。 這些計劃不是為了將它改頭換臉， 而只是將它真實的一面呈現給大眾。
受著大樹的護蔭，址五平滑、沒有落葉的 地台，令它成為特別舒適和休閒的地方。 在深入觀察之下，我們發現在址上邊緣 位置有兩把竹製的掃把。原來有些山友 和耍太極人士每天早上會耐心地掃地，好 讓地上的落葉都被清理好。除了政府興 建的設施外，山友們亦自行建造了簡單 的座椅和用來掛衣服在樹枝上的衣架 掛勾，好讓運動後濕透的衣物自然風乾。 在比較條件優厚的地點出現的地面侵 蝕痕跡和一些被磨到光滑的樹枝，都能 反映山友們如何積極地享受利用自然環 境和條件來做運動。
步行者
轉動
19 鴨仔山的社區代表與平行工作室一
同參與西貢區議會的常務會議。
20 西貢區議會常務會議每兩個月在將
軍澳政府綜合大樓舉行。區議員在內討 論有關該區的所有問題。
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
The First Platform – Activities
32
The District Council invites A co-operative workshop is the workshop’s participants organized to highlight Duckling to the District Facilities Ma- Hill’s singular identity September to November munication between the people nagement General Meeting From 2014 Hong Kong Polytechnic of Duckling Hill and the General
SKDC
HKPU
The pavilion design workshop ended on June 28, 2014 with a special event attended by the SKDC chairman and four members and about sixty representatives of the Duckling Hill community 19. Acknowledging the value of the workshop and the effort undertaken by the walkers, students, designers, and the Tseung Kwan O residents, the District Council members agreed to put the pro-
cess for implementing the governement planned facicities on hold. They requested Parallel Lab to develop the pavilion’s design according to the students’ work and the walkers’ recommendations in further collaboration with the elderly. They also promised to invite everyone to Sai Kung District Council Facility Management General Meeting on July 15, 2014 20.
University organized a design workshop at which students from different disciplines could encounter real clients : Francis Chau, Sai Kung District Council member, and social workers of the Elderly Welfare Concern Group. The workshop was structured as a course to simulate real projects, with specific design intentions, and through public participation. The objective was to develop a clear identity strategy for Duckling Hill as a Tseung Kwan O landmark, and to enhance com-
Hong Kong public. The project followed two approaches – one on site enhancement, providing a coherent vision to give the hill a real status of a landscape park including directional signs and facilities such as benches and rubbish bins ; and one on better communication methods to promote the park within and outside the district, such as information brochures. The goal of the identity strategy was not to re-design the hill with new facilities but to reveal the existing qualities of the hill.
The First Platform – Activities With the natural shade created by the large trees, the site’s characteristic is a smooth floor, cleaned from any leaves, which makes this site a particularly comfortable and relaxing place. Upon deeper examination, two hand-made bamboo brooms were found to the edges of the site. In fact every morning the walkers and the Tai Chi’s practitioners patiently sweep the floor to keep it clean from the falling leaves. Beside the Government facilities the walkers have also built simple benches or hung clothes hangers and hooks on the tree trunks to dry their cloths after exercising. Erosion of the ground in some auspicious locations or the polishing of some tree branches also reveal how they are actively enjoying the natural setting for use as exercising tools.
Movements
19 Representative of the Duckling Hill community and Parallel Lab at the SKDC General Meeting.
20 The Sai Kung District Council General Meeting is held once every two months at the Sai Kung Tseung Kwan O Government Complex’s main Auditorium. The District Members are discussing all the issues.
Walkers
Bamboos
Falling leaves
Government path and platform
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
33
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
步行者的肖像
PORTRAITS OF WALKERS
34
鴨仔山山友
SKDC
香港1980 – 2015
仙女亭－風水
區議會發現鴨仔山的價值
受公眾影響，區議會和政府都開始嘗試 提高對鴨仔山及其意義的關注。 一名區議員更稱學生的作品出色，並 邀請整個研究團隊在西貢區區議會常 務會議作介紹。
仙女亭－風水
水地形 風 特徵
SKDC
35
區議會宣布新的工作小組
經過數次商討， 西貢區區議會宣布會在 二零一五年一月成立一個新工作小 組去處理涼亭建設和鴨仔山的形象工 程。 小組包括將軍澳長者民生關注會 代表、西貢區區議會議員、香港理工大
學教職員、工程師和建築師。 但截止四月，工作小組尚未進行 過一次會議。無人知道當初的承諾是 否已經被推翻，也無人知道區議會何 時才有效率處理此事。
風水是中國一種關於人與環境共融的理 論。 風水， 顧名思義就是有關風和水。 藉 着以風水理論來考察地理， 我們可以發現 山形與昔日山上村子的選址有着密切 的關係。從風水角度來看，鴨仔山的山嶺 和山谷就如一條臥龍。 風水學說相傳當 人們居住在龍的附近， 便能得到強勁的支 持和保護。 而當山形像個打開雙臂的懷 抱時,則被視帶好運入屋的象徵.鴨仔山其 中的一些山谷形成貌似中國文字"三"的 型態，寓意三三不盡地帶來好運。從另一 種尺度來看， 過百個遍布山上的神像也 是鴨仔山的"守護神"。 這些小神像大多被 山友們從廢墟中或狹小的家具中拯救 過來， 在鴨仔山上找到新的位置和有心的 信仰者。
風水獅子像
一眾建築師與鴨仔山山友 提出了涼亭的新設計方案
PL
Parallel·Lab參考了山友的意見和學 家合作，包括結構工程師Francis·Chan 和Yasuhiro·Kaneda， 去確保設計 生研究所得，完成了涼亭的新設計。
過程中，建築師和山友們亦討論了涼 亭新加入的元素。 一四年七月十五日， Parallel·Lab、山友們和二個社工在西 貢區區議會常務會議中介紹了涼亭 的新設計。設計轉發予民政事務總署 後，民政事務總署就當中技術細節 提出意見，Parallel·Lab和一眾義務專
的可行性，包括就結構效率、穩定性和 抗風、抗雨、抗陽光的計算。 設計亦在十二月前作出相應的改 變並加以改善。一五年一月，他們在 西貢區區議會向地區設施管理委員會 和民政事務總署介紹改良後的設計， 但 接下來的程序如何卻仍然未知。
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
36
Fairies’ Pavilion – Feng Shui
Supportive District Council District Council announces members start to see the real forming a new working group several negotiations between livelihood of elderly in TKO,” Sai value and interest of the hill After Parallel Lab, the walkers and the Kung District Council members,
SKDC
SKDC
Noticing the increased public awareness, both the District Council and the Government now seek to raise awareness on the value of this unique place. One of the Sai Kung District members who participated to the co-operative workshop called the students’ work “ outstanding ” and invited the whole research team to present the project at a Sai Kung District Council General Meeting.
District Council members, the Sai Kung District Council announced in January 2015 that it would form a new working group for the pavilion construction and identity strategy of Duckling Hill. The group would consist of representatives from “Alliance concerning
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, engineers and architects. However, as of August 2015, this working group has not yet met. Was the announcement just a vague promise ? Will the efficiency be increased to serve the Tseung Kwan O community ?
Fairies’ Pavilion – Feng Shui Feng Shui (風水) is a Chinese philosophical system of harmonizing people with their surrounding environment. The term Feng Shui literally means “ wind-water ” in English. From examining the topography with a Feng Shui knowledge a close relationship can be found between the different shapes of the hill’s slope and the chosen location of the old villages built around the hill. Seen from a Feng Shui perspective, the ridges and valleys of Duckling Hill are like a crouching dragon. In Feng Shui theory, when people live near the dragon, they gain strong support and protection. When the shape of the hill has a hugging form with pattern of two arms forming a warm welcoming shape it is considered to hold all the luck into one’s house. Some Duckling Hill’s valleys form a shape that is reminiscent of “ Three ” in Chinese calligraphy. In ancient Chinese Feng Shui, it means “ endless ”, which indicates that endless fortune will come to you. On another scale the idea of “ genius loci ” or spirit of the place is expressed all over the hill by the presence of thousands of Chinese God figurines. Rescued from the rubbish bin or simply because they don’t fit a home’s need anymore the little statues find a new home and dedicated worshipers in the Hill.
F eng Shui lion statue
Designers and the Duckling Hill’s community come up with a new pavilion design
PL
Parallel Lab followed the recommendations of the walkers in parallel with the research findings from the students and developed a new design for the pavilions. Architects and walkers had several meetings to discuss the pavilion with each new stage of the design process. On 15 July 2014 the core team of walker and the two social workers they presented the proposal to at the Sai Kung District Council General meeting. The submission was forwarded to the Home Affairs Department. The Department responded with technical comments. Parallel Lab
collaborated with a voluntary team of experts such as the structural engineers Yasuhiro Kaneda and Francis Chan to secure the feasibility of the design. They provided detailed reports on structure efficiency and stability as well as weather resistance calculations. The design was then modified accordingly and further developed until December 2014, and in January 2015, the design was presented during the SKDC General Meeting in the presence of the Facilities Management Committee and the Home Affaire Department. The next steps remain uncertain.
eng Shui F landscape feature
鴨仔山山友
平行實驗室的研究日記
香港1980 – 2015
37
21 自製垃圾桶被放置在有需要的地方。
22 自發改善政府涼亭的避雨功能。
反思鴨仔山和公共空間的 設計流程與實施方法
PL
社會不可缺缺乏公共空間。香港的私 人空間太狹窄， 市民需要到開放的空 間進行社交活動。 公眾亦要藉此才能建 立自己的身份認同和社區歸屬感。 在世界每一處地方，城市規劃者、 建築師、 景觀設計師和政府都花了不 少心血去創造公共空間， 一處市民願意 使用的空間， 一處能繼續開拓的空間。 在本土和國際上，讓大眾參與的 公共設計愈來愈多。 設計師新的挑戰 不是設計出最美的公共空間，而是發 展出能讓公眾參與的模式。 在鴨仔山一例，居民在規畫前就 建設好每個空間。 他們不單選擇在適 當的位置建設以滿足他們的需要，他 們更以行動將自然環境變為真正的 公共空間。他們顛覆了原有由上而下 的設計模式，不等政府為他們規劃設 計就完成了空間的建設。 就會有 當某處需要一個垃圾箱 21， 一個廢棄的桶出現。 當避雨亭不能避 雨 22，就有大膠片固定在特定的方位和 角度。 設計師的角色只有去閱讀當中 的訊息：它們清楚顯示了這社區需要甚 麼。 設計師透過簡單的解讀就會知道 市民對空間的改造源於他們對鴨仔山 的熟悉。 市民的建設方案很簡單：沒有預 先計劃， 而是透過實際的經驗決定改
善環境。他們的設計隨時可變，例如為 天氣轉變而改動設計， 或者與政府部 門商討後妥協，永遠留下改進的空間。 鴨仔山只是特別的一例，並不是 每個的區都能為公共空間如此堅持 和投入。事實上，鴨仔山山友推進了香 港在國際公共空間的討論的地位。 政 府的角色就是認可市民自發投入， 承認 當中的珍貴之處。 但在大部分情況， 政府都低估了這 種所謂由下而上的參與的價意義。 即 使政府用上這些字眼， 以表示願意聆聽 公眾的意見和得到大眾的認可， 但事 實是政府從不認為她在公共空間範疇 上有任何責任，例如如何選擇空間的 設計公司。 在小小市民和龐大的政府中間， 設計者能扮演中間人。 他們能視計劃 所有微觀和宏觀的部分為一整體，同 時又能尊重原有的做法並給予市民 宏觀的視野。可惜大部分設計師卻沒 有機會參與公共設施的設計， 甚至政 府內部決策者也沒有任何設計的知識。 所以設計者就是市民、 政府和工程師 的中介。在鴨仔山一例，若政府能了解 市民的訴求並滿足他們， 市民根本不 會想自行搭造設施。 而很多基本建設如 斜坡保養，市民沒有專業的知識去提 供意見，就更應留給工程師負責。
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
Parallel Lab’s research diary
38
21 A hand made rubbish bin is located where needed.
22 Improvement of government shelter against the rain.
A reflection on Hong Kong’s public spaces and how the hill example encourages to rethink the design process
PL
Public spaces are indispensable for society. People need to be able to interact with each other in open spaces beyond the confined boundaries of their private spaces, which in Hong Kong can be very small. People need to be able to participate to create a feeling of individual identity and a sense of belonging as a community. In every corner of the world, urban planners, architects, landscape designers, and governments put considerable effort into making public spaces work – that is to say, spaces that are accepted by the public, used in a respectful way and at the same time with a sense of personal appropriation. There have also been more examples, locally and globally, that try to include the public to participate in the design process. The new challenge of designers is then not to design the most beautiful public space but to define models and strategies where the public can get involved. In the case of Duckling Hill, the residents themselves worked ahead of any team of experts. Not only did they choose a location that fit their needs, but with their appropriations, they converted the landscape into a real public space. In a way, they reversed the game : they did not wait for the Government and designers to include them in any design process but simply unfolded a model they asked them decided to follow. When a rubbish bin 21 has been needed at a certain location, for instance, a bucket is re-used and put directly there. When a shelter has failed to protect people from the rain 22, a sheet of plastic is fixed at the correct angle and orientation. The role of the designer is only to read their message : they have presented a clear model of what the community wants. With a simple decoding, the people’s appropriations have turned out to be a sum of vast knowledge on the site.
Their strategy has been simple, no planning, only direct testing on the site. The designs have been subject to modification, maybe to adjust something to accommodate the different weather, or to compromise after negotiations with a Government body. People always leave room for improvement. Duckling Hill is an exceptional case – there is not always such a strong commitment and engagement from every community in need of public space. In fact, the walkers of Duckling Hill have advanced Hong Kong’s position in the international debate on public space. The Government’s role is to recognize and value the people’s enormous input. Yet, too often, governments misunderstand and undervalue this so-called “ bottom-up ” participatory strategy. They might use these terms in their communication, claim that they listen to public opinion, and that they have gained public acceptance. In actuality, the Government may not have assumed responsibility on issues regarding public space, such as how they select designers. Between the scope of the micro (the people) and the macro (the Government), designers can act as a connector. They are trained to see the project as a whole – the micro and the macro – and to respect local solutions and bridge them with a global vision. Yet, designers are often not offered the opportunity to work on public facilities, and even worse, most decision makers in the Government have little or no background in design. Thus, the designer’s role is to act as an intermediary between the people, the Government, engineers and contractors. In the case of Duckling Hill, the people did not want to build things by themselves but for the Government to understand their requirements and to meet their needs.
鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
我們不能期望所有人都如鴨仔山山友 們般自發設計， 但當中的模式卻值得學 習。 這模式就是在日常生活的經驗中發 現問題， 然後改善， 不斷嘗試， 不斷改善。 設計師能從中明白到傳統的設計 方式已經漸漸改變：設計再非只是在辦 公室完成， 然後到實地執行這兩個簡單 步驟。 設計沒有真正完成的一刻。設計要 有進行改善和調整的可能。 設計者可 以實地試驗並記錄用家的反應。 在設計 落實以後， 設計者可以收集用家的意 見和解讀他們的行為反應。 用家對設計 藍圖只有主觀的判斷， 但在落實期間， 用 家會更清楚設計能否滿足自己的需要。 通常這種落實試驗來得太遲， 那時 計劃已經到了尾聲，預算餘額亦不多。 但若一開始就作這種試驗， 中間的調整 就不會被視為設計的失敗。 而且進行試驗相對簡單，時間消耗 不多，不會耽誤整個設計程序。同時， 設計者可以準備多個方案， 以減少公眾
從鴨仔山中學習
39
The Duckling Hill learning
gners can propose some on-site experimentation and record the users’ responses. When the design is put in place, they can If we can’t expect each commu- directly decode the users’ resnity to be able to implement their ponses by observing their behaown design like the people of viour and collecting their feedDuckling Hill, what can we learn back. Showing the users design from what they propose ? renderings can lead to esthetical The walkers’ methodology is or subjective judgments ; the active designing by testing, with hands-on approach is clearer, as trial and error. are the users’ articulation of their Can designers be inspired from needs. this testing process ? It would Too often this kind of trial is not need to start with a change in at all implemented or done too the traditional methodology that late, when the project is almost usually means to design in the completed and budgets are office and then implement on site closed. However, if this process in two different processes. is anticipated at the beginning, Design shouldn’t be fixed but the adjustment phase will not be should leave space for adjustperceived as the result of a failure ment and improvement. Desito properly design.
反對而造成的餘波。 這些試驗亦比在後 期大幅改動來得便宜。 讓用家參與設計， 不但能凝聚社群， 市民更會在捍衛設計中形成歸屬感。
Furthermore, since trials are relatively easy to implement, they can be put in place quickly and keep the design process moving along. Alternative solutions can also be proposed, since the risk of the public’s rejection would likely involve fewer repercussions. Trials are also comparatively less inexpensive than a substantial intervention later on. What the people of Duckling Hill have demonstrated is that including time and usage in the design process can bring a community together and can generate such a strong sense of belonging that they will do everything they can to protect the project.
The people of Duckling Hill by Parallel Lab Géraldine Borio and Caroline Wüthrich www.parallellab.com Editorial team : Madeleine Slavick (En), Yuyu Ng (CN) Proofreading : Nigel Gregory (En), Rennie Kan (CN) Chinese translation : Kenny Chor, Yuyu Ng Art direction : Lisa Guedel-Dolle Graphic design : Lisa Guedel-Dolle Photography : Anaïs Boileau (color photographs), Lisa Guedel-Dolle (black and white photographs), Parallel Lab (black and white photographs) Drawings : The students of SD 1506 Landscape design course 2014 (Au Chak Ming Jacky, Au Tsui, Chan Chung Yin Calvin, Chan Shung Lek, Choy Yan Yan, Hui Yu San, Kwok Wing Ka Katrina, Lao Xinle, Lee Yuk Ting, Leung Wang Kin, Li Yuen Man, Liang Xiaohan, Lit Po Yan, Mak Yuk Ching, Ng Wing Hei, Tsui Chun Ho, Wong Hoi Sze, Wu Chun Wai, Wu Natascia, Wu Pang, Yeung Ka Yee, Chung Siu Yin, Yu Kit Ying, Ng Kwai Fan, Fu Shi Man) Drawing editors : Yuyu Ng, Lisa Guedel-Dolle, Inès Dal Soglio Printing : Wing King Tong Printing Ltd. © 2015 Parallel Lab, Hong kong All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or edited using electronic systems, copied, or distributed in any form whatsoever without previous written consent from the authors. Printed in HONG KONG Thanks to : Lisa Guedel-Dolle, Anaïs Boileau, Yuyu Ng, Inès Dal Soglio, Madeleine Slavick, Kenny Chor, Nigel Gregory, Jackie Kwok, Dodo Cheng, Ming Hui Ko, The Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Tseung Kwan O Aged Care Complex, the members of the Alliance Concerning the Livelihood of Elderly in Tsueng Kwan O, Francis Chau, Jason Lui, Rennie Kan, the students of SD 400 Co-operative workshop (Lo Man Yee, Cheng Pui Wa, Au Chak Ming, Hui Yu San, Chun Tsz Wing, Kwok Yat Long, Chong ShingChun, Wong Po Yu, Chan Wan Fei, Manchi Chan), Francis Chan, Yasuhiro Kaneda and of course the whole community of the Duckling Hill's people.
Back cover poem
“ What is the true spirit of Duckling Hill that have engaged the walkers to developed a life-long friendships ? With fresh air and regular exercises, physical fitness and mental health are achieved and people feel bounded to the community.”
好友知音喜 相聚，暢談 人生情意濃。 心寬體健萬 年樂，和氣 處世沐春風。 鴨仔山山友
THE PEOPLE OF DUCKLING HILL
香港1980 – 2015 HONG KONG 1980 – 2015
工地之旅 1 – 6
A journey through contruction sites 1 – 6
邊緣公共空間研究
A research on an edge public space