Like Tree35Likes

Hong Kong has enough land to build 2.8M flats if......

Closed Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    24,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Wong Jeremy:
    Total area
    Sweden 450,295 sqkm
    Hong Kong 2,755 sqkm

    Population
    Sweden 10,065,389
    Hong Kong 7,374,900

    Not a fan of hk govt but looking at these numbers I think the Swedish govt has it easier...

    Yes Sweden is a large dull country on the whole but Stockholm has its challenges with a compact and pretty centre with limits to where new developments can be built (sea, country parks, rugged land etc).



    At least the Government feels the pressure from the electorate to tackle the problem even though the problem is many times less severe than HK.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wrong side of the door to hell
    Posts
    6,021

    Two birds with one stone solution: Appease Beijing by giving away the container port business, use all those spare containers by turning them into 'houses'

    Why is Hong Kong getting container homes? And will they work? | South China Morning Post


  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Yes Sweden is a large dull country on the whole but Stockholm has its challenges with a compact and pretty centre with limits to where new developments can be built (sea, country parks, rugged land etc).



    At least the Government feels the pressure from the electorate to tackle the problem even though the problem is many times less severe than HK.
    Sweden, expects 1,000,000 more people, announces to find land for additional 600,000 homes.

    Hong Kong, expects 500,000 more people, announces to find land for additional 460,000 homes and is currently investigating the use of brownfield sites.

    Sea, country parks, all a standard feature of Hong Kong as well. And rugged? Who are you kidding? Stockholm isn't nearly as rugged as Hong Kong. The plan that Sweden announced also affects Gothenburg and Uppsala, not just Stockholm.

    Yet apparently, one government is trying, while the other is not. I call this a perverse double standard.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    24,011
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Sweden, expects 1,000,000 more people, announces to find land for additional 600,000 homes.

    Hong Kong, expects 500,000 more people, announces to find land for additional 460,000 homes and is currently investigating the use of brownfield sites.
    Homes v micro-flats. Also during this period probably a similar number of flats in Hong Kong will be added to the decrepit housing stock list where mortgages aren't easy to get. The 460K 'promised' number is still below the needs of a city with a large section of society living in Government enabled squalor.

    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Yet apparently, one government is trying, while the other is not. I call this a perverse double standard.
    your willingness to praise the Hong Kong executive branch of Government on areas where the majority would consider them to be neglectful at best is admirable.


    P: HK Gov are doing a terrible job with housing. This report mocks their inability to find land
    Y: The report is crazy. It suggests things like move the Port fro the dense urban centre to Tuen Mum
    P:It not as silly as the many government offerings to distract the community such as fill in golf courses.
    Y: It is not as bad a Stockholm - distractionary comment
    P: It is much worse than stockholm and Stockholm's government have a plan to add significant number of homes
    Y: HK have a bigger plan and the current HK Executive branch of Government are glorious and infallible
    P: No they don't and they usually fail with their plans

    rinse, repeat
    Last edited by East_coast; 01-10-2017 at 11:29 AM.

  5. #25

    Oh shit, civil_servant called me out for misreading my own post.

    Proceed to mouth stuffing.

    Small flat sizes are endemic to large urban centers. If you want a bigger flat, move to the Gold Coast. I know lots of people who prefer a smaller flat downtown though.

    I've said repeatedly that Donald Tsang messed up big time and that the next administration was sleeping to realize the impact. However, since 2014, the situation has changed.

    Here's what's happening in our area alone.

    Name:  6cCT1fr.jpg
Views: 152
Size:  442.3 KB

    Beyond that the government has been active to procure land, convert industrial space to residential, and determine ways to find land by considering alternatives. However, none of these strategies are straightforward and take time to develop. While industrial space does provide for larger flats, people are concerned about fire safety and indoor air quality. The same considerations concern brownfield sites, etc. It's not so easy to just say 1-2-3 and it's all done. A good example is a charity in the Gold Coast. They used to own a huge government plot. In recent years, half was taken away to procure land for a private school. Now their half has been sliced again to make room for housing. Initially, the government wanted the whole plot, but unable to find feasible alternative plots for this charity, the government decided to give them more time to stay at half the plot. Through negotiation and brainstorming they were willing to make compromises, while still being able to secure the lot at a later stage. That's the exact reason that it takes time to procure land. One shouldn't just take numbers, then force them through. At the Gold Coast, a major concern is now traffic due to an influx in residents and due to Castle Peak being just one lane. A widening has been proposed, but there is objection due to the destruction of trees along the road. The also planned to put in a cycling track, but residents of a development rejected it saying that since it's in front of their development, cyclist will endanger residents, so back it went to the drawing board. All these things have to be taken into account when doing the planning. There have been public consultations and things are proceeding. Saying that government is just intentionally restricting supply, doesn't do anyone any favors.

    Last edited by civil_servant; 01-10-2017 at 02:21 PM.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    24,011
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Oh shit, civil_servant called me out for misreading my own post.
    No. CY Leung has not released more land only required smaller flats. This does little for the supply side economics. Yes there is a trend for smaller city flats in many places but Hong Kong is beyond most sensible recommendations for living space per person. Hence the government policy for creating squalor like environments for its citizens.



    As you point out for the last 6 years the current administration has been solving the lack of land released to the market.

    How is it going?

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    No. CY Leung has not released more land only required smaller flats. This does little for the supply side economics. Yes there is a trend for smaller city flats in many places but Hong Kong is beyond most sensible recommendations for living space per person. Hence the government policy for creating squalor like environments for its citizens.



    As you point out for the last 6 years the current administration has been solving the lack of land released to the market.

    How is it going?
    Comparing a city to countries again?

    I said 2014. That's clearly 3 years. The government had identified 152 sites for development at that time. They overlap with the sites being developed at the Gold Coast. These lots are in various stages of development now, some are sold but not open. There are many more such developments around the city. Look at Tsuen Wan for example. The impact on supply hasn't reached the market yet since none are ready for handover. Thus all we can do is wait to see the effect.

    Nonetheless, this process does not take care of immediate needs. I understand that. Moving the harbor and clearing brown fields sites would take even longer, thus suggesting that it will easily rescue Hong Konger's from squalor is untrue. Hence the Sim City remark. Also, given that TEU is already dropping, then why the need to spend money and resources to move it? Won't it just shrink naturally? I think the containerized modular home solution has merit if implemented properly. It's been used to deal with shortages in various other countries, whether housing, schooling, or storage. There are lots of other proposals out there and the government admits that housing is a serious issue, thus we're heading in the right direction.
    hullexile likes this.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    24,011
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    I said 2014. That's clearly 3 years.
    C Y Leung was selected more than 3 years ago and he put housing first.


    [QUOTE=civil_servant;3527999]The government had identified 152 sites for development at that time. /QUOTE]

    They identified over 175 sites from memory but I don't the targets of m2 of residential space or published yet for 2017.

    Also as requested by LegCo they stated the following use of land in the NT

    Container storage 52 ha
    Open Storage 29 ha
    Warehouses 46 ha
    Logistics operations 30 ha
    Vehicle repair workshops 18 ha


    Much of this 175Ha of clearly commercial land has paid very little into the government coffers as it is still 'agricultural' and in control by 'powerful' organisations.

    I wish I could share your optimism that the current administration will resolve the housing omni-shambles.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    93

    Enjoy life, no savings / hide savings ==> rewarded, low rent public housing
    Working hard, have savings ==> punished, pay 4x - 6x rent, living humbly in private housing

    Skyhook likes this.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    C Y Leung was selected more than 3 years ago and he put housing.

    They identified over 175 sites from memory but I don't the targets of m2 of residential space or published yet for 2017.

    Also as requested by LegCo they stated the following use of land in the NT

    Container storage 52 ha
    Open Storage 29 ha
    Warehouses 46 ha
    Logistics operations 30 ha
    Vehicle repair workshops 18 ha


    Much of this 175Ha of clearly commercial land has paid very little into the government coffers as it is still 'agricultural' and in control by 'powerful' organisations.

    I wish I could share your optimism that the current administration will resolve the housing omni-shambles.
    Well, those are brownfield sites. We have truck repair shops next to us. You should see them. They operate without proper drainage. They drain the oil from trucks over open ground. Sites like this need to be decontaminated and refreshed before residential developments can even be considered. This takes expert knowledge and one has to determine how deep the contamination is and what kind of contaminants it contains. This can vary from site to site. The difficulty is that each site will also have an owner, some will cooperate, some will not. On top of that, each site is quite small and spread out, so you need to gather several properties in order to make it worthwhile for large scale residential development. This process can be slow. Putting temporary containers on decontaminated lots where owners cooperated in the meantime may be a temporary solution though.

    What they usually do in China is that they will kick everyone out, then bulldoze and maybe decontaminate the entire area.

    Im not sure whether you'd like to see this kind of development model in Hong Kong. It does have it's advantages, but also big disadvantages.

    The government is currently studying how to best deal with this scenario. There should be pressure on this case to drive results and to ensure that they deliver. Even if they have a plan, it may take time to move forward. You don't just cancel contracts on the spot, nor do you just throw money at them for compensation if it could be spend on more efficient ways to procure land.