(front left) and Queen's Pier (front right) in 2005. The new pier (background left) is now in full operation. From the outset, the fate of the pier has been intimately linked with the
Central Reclamation project which was unveiled in 1989 but not explicitly spelled out as such. However, the scale of reclamations has only been slightly cut back following significant legal battles. In conjunction with the proposed demolition of the Queen’s Pier and the adjacent
Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier necessitated by Phase III of the Central Reclamation project, the
Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) commissioned a heritage impacts survey in 2001. The
Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB), in two separate meetings in March 2002 and December 2006, reached the same view of not raising objections as to the demolition of the Queen’s Pier. Instead, the Board asked the Government to preserve relics of the Queen’s Pier for reconstruction on the reclaimed harbourfront. The Government later unveiled four design options for such relocation. The intended closure of the pier was 26 April 2007. At the end of January 2007, the government declared it would postpone the demolition of Queen's Pier until a consensus could be reached on the course of action; consultations with the
Hong Kong Institute of Architects, the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers, and the
Conservancy Association were held.
Chief Executive Donald Tsang said that being overzealous in saving the past may hurt Hong Kong's competitiveness, and called on activists to take a more balanced view toward economic growth and conservation. Soon after Tsang's
re-election as Chief Executive, on 26 March, the Government pressed ahead with plans to dismantle and move the entire pier, piece by piece, enabling the reclamation to go ahead. The government said that the in-situ preservation, though apparently viable on paper, would risk irreversible damage to the pier. Furthermore, it argued that important underground facilities such as the Airport Railway Extended Overrun Tunnel would be affected, saying a natural curvature of the track was required. Although Lam's performance in public debates was praised, the Secretary for Development's conflict of interest as the head of the
Antiquities Advisory Board was criticised. Lam said the AAB did not have governmental authority, and that it had not suggested keeping the pier in its totality.
District councils The government polled 16
District Councils, fourteen of which voted in support of relocating the pier to the new waterfront. However, in July 2008 activists cried foul when eight councils revealed that the preservation of the pier in its existing location was not put forth as one of the options; the vice-chairmen of two councils that voted to support this also objected that their decision may have not been an informed one as not all possible options were on the table. The chief town planner said that the omitted proposal "was not an efficient option and would create unnecessary
construction waste". After it was revealed in August 2008 that the government was behind the 13 concerted District Councils' motions in 2008 supporting the relocation of the pier to the new waterfront,
Albert Ho condemned the government of tampering with
District Councils to "create public opinion." Convenor of the Urban Design Alliance doubted the openness of consultation, saying that "the government had engineered its results". Dr Li Pang-kwong, of
Lingnan University, said that the problematic framework of the councils has led them to work too closely with the government. He said the 'copy and paste' Queen's Pier motions passed by 13 councils to support government decisions was a rubber-stamp, and a clear sign that councils lacked independence.
Conservationists' position Ron Phillips, original designer of the pier, backed preservation, saying that any loss of the City Hall and the adjacent open space would be something "future generations will come to regret". The proposed 40-metre-wide road, planned in the 1980s, was now "obsolete", and would make the waterfront "inaccessible to the public".
Albert Lai, Chairman of the Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development, drew attention to the fact that the budgeted spending for infrastructure over the past three years of HK$90 billion contrasted poorly with HK$90 million spent on acquiring and renovating heritage sites. Local Action, a loose alliance of protesters on site, described the pier as a cornerstone of Hong Kong identity. By linking the pier with earlier social movements in late 1960s and early 1970s, it argued that the place was a symbol of Hong Kong civic activism and therefore should not be demolished.
Preservation campaign battlefronts Public and media In September 2004, legislator Law Chi-kwong took a swim in Victoria Harbour bearing a plaque saying "Goodbye to the Queen", to protest the
Central and Wan Chai Reclamation, particularly the loss of Queen's Pier. Soon after the unsuccessful attempt to save the Star Ferry pier in early 2007, a campaign to preserve the pier
in situ was launched. Ahead of the closure, members of the public, environmentalists, and some lawmakers arrived to tie blue ribbons to indicate their desire to preserve
the harbour. On 22 April, about 100 protesters once again rallied at the pier, launching farewell voyages in a last-ditch attempt to urge the Government to reconsider: a petition of over 400 signatures from the Arts community was collected. An occupation of the pier was started by ten activists on the designated closure date. The campaign was boosted by the appearance of
Chow Yun-fat early on the morning of 28 April to sign the petition, and to appeal pre-emptively to the police not to hurt protesters. Some activists, like
Chu Hoi-dick, have been involved in the Star Ferry pier protest, and took turns to maintain a round-the-clock presence. Leung Chun-yiu spent three nights a week at the site, despite working a full-time job, vowing to block the demolition non-violently in any way he could. On 27 July, three students, as part of a group called
Local Action started a hunger strike at the pier. Hunger striker Chan King-fai said: "The government wasn't chosen by us. All we can do is to use our humble and limited voices." In an operation which lasted ten hours during daylight hours on 1 August 2007, 300 Police officers cleared away the 30 or so protesters from the site, amid scuffles.
Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor complained that its observers were denied access to the area during the eviction.
Legislative Council An application for HK$50 million to fund the dismantling and relocating of the pier was scheduled for debate by the Public Works sub-committee on 9 May 2007, the same day the Antiquities Advisory Board would hold a public hearing to decide on the historical grading of the pier. due to the lack of support. Choy So-yuk, from the usually pro-Government
DAB, called for the vote to be postponed, and the
Liberal Party equally did not back the Government. However, Government ministers declared that it had "no plans to list the pier as a
declared monument", and insisted that there was "no direct relationship between the grading and whether we will demolish and relocate the pier". Civic Party legislative councillor
Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung said that there was "no sincerity [from the government] to preserve historic venues". Choy So-yuk, who voted against the appropriation on 9 May, abstained. She revealed that she had been lobbied by Michael Suen and Donald Tsang; party
whips did not allow her to cast an opposing vote. Twelve members voted for Grade 1 listing, and ten voted for Grade 2 listing. However, the status is not-binding on the Government. After the hearing, an activist from 'Local Action' declared the AAB's decision a victory for the people, and warned the government "not to treat the voice of the people lightly". Suen further stated that the AAB’s recommendation had no bearing on the Government’s action.
Legal challenge As Lands Department officials arrived on 30 July to put up notices ordering an end to the "unlawful occupation" of government land, the activists filed for a judicial review, claiming that the decision of the
Secretary for Home Affairs not to declare the structure a monument was unreasonable and illegal. The
High Court set the date for the case to be heard as 7 August. Judge Johnson Lam said that the case about the future of Queen's Pier should be heard as there is great public interest in the outcome and justified a one-week respite for the site.
Institute of Planners controversy The
Hong Kong Institute of Planners, the majority of whose members work in government departments, had backed the
in-situ preservation of the pier. There was uproar in May 2008 when it made an apparent U-turn in a position paper submitted to the government backing the relocation to a waterfront location, based on a sparsely attended meeting. It then submitted a revised paper presenting that a majority of its members supported such a move as a conclusion prior to the completion of a survey. A former vice-president of the institute questioned how the institute had become allies of the government.
Possibility of reinstatement In 2021, it was revealed that the government was looking at a reinstatement of the pier away from the Central Harbourfront area. ==Popular culture==