In 2008, the government's attempts, post dismantling, to create the appearance of public support for reassembling the pier at the new waterfront were criticised by conservationists.

[2] It was a ceremonial landing area for the British royal family visiting Hong Kong, and for successive governors to assert their authority on arrival.

[2] It was a sheltered pier made of concrete and steel, with round pillars and arches, built on the site of the present Mandarin Oriental Hotel[3] at a cost of HK$20,000.

The secondary design goal was to maximise public access to the very limited open space in Central in contrast with the city bustle.

[11] 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.

[16] 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.

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.

[12] "Setting aside the technical difficulties and the huge risk involved in the works, underpinning for the construction of the extended overrun tunnel would cost about HK$500 million and take more than two years to complete".

[18] Although Lam's performance in public debates was praised,[19] the Secretary for Development's conflict of interest as the head of the Antiquities Advisory Board was criticised.

The pieces would be labelled and then lifted by a crane barge and transported to the government's explosives depot in Kau Shat Wan, Lantau Island, where it would be stored under guard.

[1] 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".

[16] Environmental groups were angered by the government's technobabble, and for inflating the costs and technical difficulties of keeping the pier at the original site.

[23] The Civic Party accused the government of misleading the public: the development plans for the North Island Line precluded the restoration of the pier before 2016.

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.

[26] 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:[15] a petition of over 400 signatures from the Arts community was collected.

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.

[28] 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.

[29] 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.

[35] During the debate, the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services also said that even if the site was pronounced a first-class monument, there remained no legally binding prohibition against its demolition.

[35] Liberal Party chairman James Tien said that, in failing to muster support to implement its policies, "the Government is like a crab with weak legs".

[36] The government claimed that its handling of the issue had been "in line with pledges made by Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen during his recent re-election campaign" to regain the moral high ground regarding heritage preservation, following the mistakes of the Star Ferry saga.

[35] The public works subcommittee approved the Government's re-submitted request for funds to dismantle and relocate Queen's Pier on 23 May in a 10–7 vote.

[46] 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.

[47] 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.