Treating the Symptoms - A Critical Review of ... - Civic Exchange

Left: Multi-ownership with inadequate management mechanisms makes it difficult forowners to coordinate building maintenance. Here, a business owner has painted theexternal walls of only his or her unit. Box 3Case Studyand politically controversial line between private propertyrights and the public interest in speeding up urban renewal,and were politically controversial as they were seen as aidingprivate developers. 108Multi-ownership in the form of condominiums or stratatitled office buildings exists in many cities around the world,though admittedly not on the same scale as in Hong Kong.It is the combination with other factors that makes multiownershipa seemingly insurmountable problem here. Landpremiums discourage owners from coming together toagree on redevelopment. A highly concentrated propertymarket dominated by a few large developers (as a resultof Hong Kong’s high land price policy) means that fewinvestors are willing to deal with small property owners forsmaller-scale projects with lower profit margins. Inadequateorganizational mechanisms in building management makeit harder to get individual property owners together todiscuss any redevelopment or refurbishment proposals.While multi-ownership is here to stay, there are potentialreforms in other areas that can ameliorate the problem.Town planner Ian Brownlee, who agreed to be interviewed for thisproject, recounted his personal experience in rehabilitating an oldbuilding. Brownlee lives in Happy Valley in an 11-storey block of flatsbuilt in 1951. This building was very much a typical older buildingunder poor management — it was poorly maintained, and there wereproblems with the electrical wiring, the plumbing, and the lift. Therewas water seepage, illegal structures, and common areas were nevercleaned. Brownlee participated in forming an owners’ corporation and inrehabilitating the building. His story illustrates how physical decay oftencomes about as a result of human problems, including corruption.The only form of building management was a mutual aid committee, towhich all residents paid a management fee. In reality, this committeewas non-operational and its decisions and funds were monopolized bythe chairman, who was not even a registered owner in the building.Many of the owners, especially elderly residents, were intimidated bythe chairman and reluctant to confront him.Eventually, some of the younger and better-educated residents led aneffort to set up a formal owners’ corporation and seize control of themanagement funds from the mutual aid committee. This required thehelp of the Home Affairs Department’s District Land Officer who providedtechnical assistance including offering to provide an accountant. Themutual aid committee chairman was forced to relinquish control andturn over the accounts to the owners’ corporation, upon which it wasdiscovered that he had accumulated HK$300,000 in management feesover the years all the while refusing to carry out repairs.The owners’ corporation then hired an architect to oversee the building’srefurbishment and a contractor to carry out the works. A competitiveinterview process kept costs down. The drainage and wiring weremodernized, the lift replaced, the exterior was renovated. The original1950s floor tiles and plasterwork were retained in the common areasas long-time residents had grown quite attached to these features. Theworks cost HK$3-4 million in total, which amounted to a little more thanHK$100,000 per household. When they were completed, home valuesincreased threefold.Brownlee considers the refurbishment to have been a great investment,both financially and in terms of building community. 11431