The recent outdoor dining controversy reveals that we still have a long way to go in Hong Kong when it comes to understanding public space. By John Robertson

Fans of alfresco dining were up in arms recently over the Central and Western District Council’s recent decision to ban restaurants from operating in public open space. At the center of the row is Gaia Ristorante in Sheung Wan’s Grand Millenium Plaza. Since 2004, the Italian restaurant has been paying the government $180,000 a year to use five percent of the surrounding plaza for outdoor dining. Yet two weeks ago the local council reiterated its decision earlier in January to ban all commercial use of public space, giving the restaurant until July 15 to remove its outdoor tables. While the subsequent public outcry led them to extend the existing outdoor license by three months, the ultimate fate of the restaurant’s alfresco dining section is still up in the air, now awaiting a review by the Development Bureau.

Naturally, the debate has wider implications for the rest of Hong Kong’s dining scene. Some fear Hong Kong’s increasingly endangered dai pai dongs could be at greater risk, and that the scenario will spread beyond Central and Western. “If the issue isn’t resolved, sooner or later we will have the same problem in other districts,” says Legislative Councilor Tanya Chan, a member of the council who believes restaurants should be allowed to use public space as long as they comply with appropriate regulations, and who says she has not received any complaints about Gaia.

So how did the council arrive at its controversial conclusion? The official precedent cited is that of the Times Square debacle last year, in which the building’s developer was found to be illegally renting out sections of public space to clients. After widespread public criticism followed, the Central and Western District Council—under guidance from the District Lands Office—decided to rule out any use of public space for commercial purposes.

Critics of the Gaia case are quick to point out how different is from that of Times Square, with Gaia having paid fees to the government for five years now, and letting the public use its tables and chairs for free in the mornings. Nonetheless, the comparison should hardly come as a surprise, says public space activist and convener of Designing Hong Kong Paul Zimmerman, for the council has little else to go by when it comes to such decisions, which it has only recently been designated to make. “The government has delegated a lot of new responsibilities to the district councils on the issue of opens space, but done so with few guidelines for them to follow.”

The result is an official misinterpretation of well-founded concerns about encroachment, prompting black and white decisions such as a flat out ban on any and all “commercial” activity in such areas, regardless of whether such activity might in fact add positively to the local environment.

It doesn’t help that Hong Kong has little previous experience with using open space to draw on in recent history. As Zimmerman points out, over the last 30 years, such use has generally occurred through private deals between the government and business operators, without public debate on the matter. “As a result, we don’t have clear common values on the issue,” he says, pointing out that there are still many traditionalists bent on keeping open space pure of any activity. Yet increasingly groups as diverse as the Tourism Board, street artists, young people in general and the smoking lobby have been voicing their support for more animated spaces in the city rather than vast empty plazas.

Advocates for more animated public space agree that what’s needed right now is a detailed set of ground rules on the matter for local district councils from the government, namely the Development Bureau. “The government should come up with a policy—one that includes a fee and guidelines setting out what is and isn’t OK—to actively encourage appropriate uses of outdoor space,” says veteran architect and Legislative Councilor Patrick Lau. He and other Legco proponents, including Chan, maintain that as long as local activities don’t obstruct passages, cause hygiene or noise problems or are a general nuisance to the public, they ought to be welcomed. “As long as there are appropriate checks and balances, I think the people will enjoy it,” he says, again drawing comparisons with the case of local street performers and artists.

In the case of Gaia there are hopes for a potential turnaround, though bureaucratic difficulties still lie in the way. Stephen Chan, vice chairman of the council says that at a meeting last week following widespread public complaints about the decision on Gaia, many members revised their opinions on the matter, agreeing that it was significantly different from the Times Square case. “On top of that, some members acknowledged that a commercial activities space could actively vitalize an area.”

Nonetheless, the District Lands Office refuses to budge on its purist stance. The council has thus sent the case to the overseeing Development Bureau for a review, seeking detailed guidelines in return. Zimmerman is confident that community efforts will ensure a positive outcome both for Gaia and Hong Kong’s dining community. “What we need to come up with in the next three months is a common sense policy on public space,” he says. “With the pressure everybody is giving right, I think you’re going to see that happen.”