Why is the public gathering to form a coalition against West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD)? The answer is simple: the people have tried to make their voices heard for several years but to no avail. Now that the HKSAR Government has short-listed three developers, the people have no choice but to galvanize themselves for battle.

Let us remind ourselves of what happened over the years.

In 1998, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa announced that Hong Kong should have a state-of-the-art performance venue. A tourism study supported cultural and entertainment facilities to be clustered around such a performance venue. The government then looked at developing West Kowloon into a prime waterfront area to create a new look at Victoria Harbour. All that was done with little public involvement. No doubt some of the largest developers must have indicated interest in the site.

Smarting from the unpopular experience of the Cyberport, where no tender was carried out, the government decided to hold a concept competition for the West Kowloon design. Before releasing the competition brief, the government consulted local professionals, as well as the Real Estate Developers Association, on a draft that essentially only required the integration of a number of cultural facilities. No plot ratio was stated. This meant the competitors did not have to consider cost effectiveness and viability. The professionals suggested that the brief should be tightened. The government went ahead without stating a plot ratio constraint for the 2001 competition.

Many of the competition submissions had low plot ratios of under 1 times. However, if the result of the competition was ever intended to guide a real development, there would have to be far more development to pay for the public facilities. That is what has in fact happened. The three finalist developers, Cheung Kong-Sun Hung Kai, Henderson and Sino-Wharf-Chinese Estates have planned high plot ratios at between 2.5 to 4.3 times.

What was designed with a much lower plot ratio in mind for a concept design competition that produced an icon feature of a giant canopy is unlikely to end up being the same thing when the plot ratio is many times the original scheme.

The government's competition process was a mistake from the start. The final outcome of the WKCD will be a site that is inevitably over-developed to compensate for various cultural and exhibition venues that are unlikely to be financially viable on their own, not to mention the extraordinary expensive canopy that is meant to cover at least 55 per cent of a 40 hectare site.

Apart from the professionals, who had a problem with the competition brief from the start, and who understand the complexity of urban planning, design and development, the arts and culture sector has also questioned the grand idea of spending money on building many venues, when the government has not done enough to develop the creative arts or to promote audiences for the visual and performing arts.

Thus, many knowledgeable individuals and civic groups have begun to question the wisdom of the WKCD. A stream of objectors went before Legco in 2003, some of whom organised public forums.

Despite that, the government went ahead to invite proposals for development after persuading the Town Planning Board to rezone the site to provide maximum flexibility for construction.

Fundamental questions that have yet to be answered satisfactorily include:

What is the validity of using property to finance cultural venues?

What are the impacts on the property market by allowing the winning developer to dominate in Kowloon, and is it in the public interest?

Why has there been no effort to look at optimising harbourfront development by considering where venues should best be placed and by taking Central, Wanchai, and Kowloon Bay developments into account?

How might such a project divert resources into venues' construction and what will be the impact on the creative side of our city's arts development?

What are the opportunity costs of the whole project? In other words, if the resources were used elsewhere would it produce a higher public outcome?

Why is there a total lack of transparency of the financial arrangements when the public is actually the financier of the project by providing the land for development?

There is now a 15-week consultation period, starting in mid-month, of the three finalist developers' proposals. The focus will be on external features and not the questions stated above. The single most galling characteristic of the Tung administration is its habit of avoiding the fundamental by focusing on the superficial.

Christine Loh is chief executive officer of the Civic Exchange, an independent non-profit public policy think tank in Hong Kong