381 2
Left: Graham Street<strong>the</strong> 1970s to indicate that that <strong>the</strong> government wished tosee comprehensive, ra<strong>the</strong>r than piecemeal redevelopmentin a relatively large area <strong>of</strong> several blocks. It was thoughtthat comprehensive development would resolve planningproblems such as inadequate community facilities and openspace, inadequate infrastructure, inefficient street layouts,and incompatible land uses. 147 All development within aCDA must be approved by <strong>the</strong> TPB, and in most cases <strong>the</strong>TPB will reject proposals for <strong>the</strong> small-scale redevelopment<strong>of</strong> just one or two plots if <strong>the</strong>y interfere with <strong>the</strong> overallplan.If <strong>the</strong> owners within a CDA wish to comprehensivelyredevelop, <strong>the</strong>y need to come to an agreement with all<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r owners. If a developer wants to build somethingwithin a CDA, he has to buy up most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> properties in it(although he is allowed to do this in phases).While some CDAs, such as Taikoo Place, have beensuccessful, o<strong>the</strong>rs have resulted in something akin toplanning blight as <strong>the</strong> owners were unable to come to anagreement, nor were developers able to acquire <strong>the</strong> site.This was <strong>the</strong> case in <strong>the</strong> URA’s Hanoi Road project, whichhad been zoned as a CDA since <strong>the</strong> 1970s. The owners wereunable to reach an agreement, <strong>the</strong> buildings deteriorated,and <strong>the</strong> project was eventually taken on by <strong>the</strong> LDC in <strong>the</strong>early 1990s. 148 (This was one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> few LDC/URA projectswhere <strong>the</strong> owners shared in <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>its <strong>of</strong> redevelopmentinstead <strong>of</strong> simply accepting compensation. 149 ) The Mertonand Tsuen Wan Vision City were CDAs that were originallysupposed to have been redeveloped by <strong>the</strong> Housing Society,but for various reasons that never happened. They continuedto decay for years before <strong>the</strong>y were taken on by <strong>the</strong> LDCand URA. In recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem <strong>of</strong> blight, <strong>the</strong> TPBbegan in 1998 to re-evaluate CDAs and rezoned some too<strong>the</strong>r uses, reducing <strong>the</strong>ir number from 157 to 114 between1998 and 2002. 150If not for planning blight, <strong>the</strong>re may not have been a needfor <strong>the</strong> LDC or <strong>the</strong> URA to take over certain sites at all.Yet <strong>the</strong> LDC inadvertently worsened <strong>the</strong> problem in manycases. In 1998, <strong>the</strong> LDC announced a number <strong>of</strong> projectsbut never got around to implementing most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. 25projects were inherited by <strong>the</strong> URA in 2000, and it took <strong>the</strong>URA nine more years to <strong>of</strong>ficially commence <strong>the</strong>m all. 151In <strong>the</strong> meantime, project sites already in poor conditiondeteriorated even fur<strong>the</strong>r. The owners saw no sense ininvesting in repairs if <strong>the</strong>ir properties were going to bedemolished anyway.A cursory visual inspection <strong>of</strong> buildings slated to bedemolished in Graham Street, Peel Street, and StauntonStreet found that many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m are in a very dilapidatedcondition, with bare crumbling concrete and brokenwindows. Yet similar buildings a short distance away werein noticeably better condition, and some even appeared tohave been fully refurbished by private owners.Blight should become less <strong>of</strong> a problem for future URAprojects, since projects are no longer announced yearsahead <strong>of</strong> commencement. Under current policy (see PartI), unless <strong>the</strong> URA decides to begin public consultationsin advance, <strong>the</strong> public will only find out about a projectwhen it is formally commenced and gazetted, after whichan objections process or town planning approval process<strong>of</strong> a definite length will begin. Then after receiving finalapproval from <strong>the</strong> Secretary <strong>of</strong> Development or <strong>the</strong> TPB,<strong>the</strong> URA has a one-year time limit in which to purchase all<strong>the</strong> properties.Yet while this lack <strong>of</strong> transparency may limit blight atspecific redevelopment sites, on a broader scale it blanketsentire districts with uncertainty. The URA operates in ninetarget areas: Kwun Tong, Ma Tau Kok, Sai Ying Pun, ShamShui Po, Tai Kok Tsui, Tsuen Wan, Wan Chai, Yau MaTei, and Yau Tong. Residents living in <strong>the</strong>re cannot predictwhen or where <strong>the</strong> URA will intervene, nor is it necessarilyreasonable to assume that <strong>the</strong> most dilapidated buildingswill be targeted first. The URA’s list <strong>of</strong> 200 projects wereselected on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> opaque criteria, nor did <strong>the</strong> publichave any input. This overall uncertainty could depressincentives to invest and rehabilitate buildings in general.Placing more control over redevelopment into owners’hands would eliminate <strong>the</strong> problem <strong>of</strong> uncertainty. If <strong>the</strong>URA’s role was limited to organising owners who wereinterested in redevelopment, <strong>the</strong>y would avoid <strong>the</strong> threat<strong>of</strong> having <strong>the</strong>ir investments in maintenance go to waste.For example, <strong>the</strong> URA could work toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> HomeAffairs Department to organize owners’ committees indilapidated neighbourhoods so that <strong>the</strong> owners can voteon whe<strong>the</strong>r to pursue redevelopment or repairs. Following<strong>the</strong>ir decision, <strong>the</strong> URA could partner owners up withdevelopers, or provide expertise and funding to carry outrepairs.39
- Page 7: The Local Context:Evolving Communit
- Page 10 and 11: Hong Kong Urban Design ConcernsHong
- Page 12 and 13: 12In 1998, the Planning Department
- Page 14 and 15: Part I:14The URA —A Redevelopment
- Page 16 and 17: Version 2:The Urban RenewalAuthorit
- Page 18 and 19: URA Ordinance vs.Urban Renewal Stra
- Page 20 and 21: How The URA WorksThe Cycle ofResump
- Page 22 and 23: PART II:22The PoliticalEconomyof th
- Page 24 and 25: The Institutional ContextNationaliz
- Page 26 and 27: 26traditionally given the Lands Dep
- Page 28 and 29: 28maximum allowable plot ratio —
- Page 31 and 32: Left: Multi-ownership with inadequa
- Page 33 and 34: Weak building maintenanceregulation
- Page 35 and 36: Lack of FinancingOne significant pr
- Page 37: Left: Graham Streetrequirement. 137
- Page 41 and 42: From the point of view of private d
- Page 43 and 44: The Built EnvironmentPart I discuss
- Page 45 and 46: Left: The K11 shopping mall, hotel,
- Page 48 and 49: Box 4Calculating Plot RatioPlot rat
- Page 50 and 51: 50Standardized ArchitectureStandard
- Page 53 and 54: Left: Langham Place, blank facade o
- Page 56 and 57: 56Figure-ground diagram of Langham
- Page 58 and 59: 58This page: Footbridge network ove
- Page 61: Left: Wo Tik Street - the only acti
- Page 65 and 66: Public Open Spaces and Pedestrian P
- Page 67 and 68: The MertonThe Merton in Kennedy Tow
- Page 69 and 70: Left: The widened pavement along Sh
- Page 71 and 72: Langham PlaceThere are often paveme
- Page 73 and 74: Recreational Public Open SpacesQuan
- Page 75: Hanoi Road K11 Open SpaceSize: 1,20
- Page 78 and 79: 78Clockwise from left: The ground f
- Page 81 and 82: The MertonTotal size (sites A and B
- Page 83 and 84: General ObservationsLandscapingGene
- Page 85: The URA also announced that it had
- Page 88 and 89:
Box 6The Counterproductive Pursuito
- Page 91 and 92:
Opposite, clockwise from top right:
- Page 93 and 94:
Social ImpactSocially sustainable d
- Page 96 and 97:
Left: Western Market has become pri
- Page 98 and 99:
98This spread from left: This anony
- Page 100 and 101:
Top: A naturally gentrified street
- Page 102 and 103:
102Comprehensive redevelopment disp
- Page 104 and 105:
104Luxury shopping at the K11 mall
- Page 106 and 107:
106A building rehabilitated by the
- Page 108 and 109:
According to town planner Ian Brown
- Page 110 and 111:
110
- Page 112 and 113:
112Wan Chai Market. Built in 1937,
- Page 114 and 115:
114
- Page 116 and 117:
116
- Page 118 and 119:
118Conclusion
- Page 120 and 121:
120
- Page 122 and 123:
Appendix 1Name of projectAddress/lo
- Page 124 and 125:
Name of projectAddress/locationArea
- Page 126 and 127:
126Endnotes1 HKSAR Planning Departm
- Page 128 and 129:
128110 Chan, B. W. (2002), “The h
- Page 130:
Room 701, Hoseinee House,69 Wyndham