An evaluation of the planning and design of waterfront in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Victoria Harbour is regarded as a symbol for Hong Kong and it gives the name of “Pearl of the Eastern Oriental”. However, due to the need for land to accommodate population growth and construction of transport infrastructure, harbour reclamation became a dominant strategy in meeting these demands. Fortunately, after the Protection of Harbour Ordinance passed in 1996 and judgement handed down by the Court of Final Appeal halted further reclamation on both sides of the harbour. Furthermore, demolition of Start Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier in 2007 also unveiled the fall of conventional public engagement exercise and the underestimated public aspirations in gaining access to the harbourfront area. At the end, the CE addressed the issues in his 2008 and 2009 Policy Addresses in response to the public request in harbourfront beautification. \nHarbourfront regeneration projects started worldwide since early 1950s in the North America. The dissertation first reviewed theoretical concepts that are involved in planning and design issues of harbourfront regeneration. Case studies in Singapore, Vancouver and New York are examined so as to extract critical successful factors. An evaluation framework is then formulated to evaluate the selected case. Kwun Tong Promenade Stage One is selected and will be evaluated against the criteria stipulated in the evaluation framework. Through evaluating and analyzing the case, the deficiency of the planning and design of harbourfront in Hong Kong is unveiled. As a result, a set of recommendations are made to improve the planning and design of harbourfront in Hong Kong.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".