Like Tree48Likes

Building collapse in Sham Shui Po / Hung Hom

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeLo:
    I also agree with the poster here that the property prices act as a preventive force for people who know they live in such structures as they cannot afford to move out.
    You're working under the assumption that newer buildings are always better. Anyone who has seen the shoddy quality of workmanship, and lack of usable space, of new developments knows this is not necessarily true.

    Many people, myself included, prefer older walk-up buildings because the ceilings are higher, the windows larger, and the space more usable. It's a crying shame that the URA is demolishing these old buildings (e.g. in Staunton Street) just to put up more shite bathroom-tile towers.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,043
    Quote Originally Posted by bookblogger:
    You're working under the assumption that newer buildings are always better. Anyone who has seen the shoddy quality of workmanship, and lack of usable space, of new developments knows this is not necessarily true.

    Many people, myself included, prefer older walk-up buildings because the ceilings are higher, the windows larger, and the space more usable. It's a crying shame that the URA is demolishing these old buildings (e.g. in Staunton Street) just to put up more shite bathroom-tile towers.
    I met the owner of one of the Staunton flats late November at Earth and his flat was the one featured last week in the SCMP and another Chinese newspaper. His flat was pictured and it looks pretty impressive for what they have done. His letter mentions that some 26% of the units have not been upgraded like he and some others have done as they are owned by the URA which is recommending it be taken down. Some other owners aren't upgrading as they fear the URA. I walked by there the other evening and it is a pretty good looking building from the outside.

    This tragedy in To Kwa Wan is sad for a lot of people and the poster who mentioned the affordability issue as an aside to his post got jumped on unfairly. For the life of me I will never understand how someone gets labelled a "troll" only to have a gang bang break out. To me if you disagree just say why - no need to do more.

    It is true that these old buildings have been subdivided in TKW to get more dollars per square foot for the owners but if there was no demand they wouldn't be rented out. The folks there as that poster suggested include those who might want to be there but also many who cannot afford other flats due to the high cost of housing.
    GeorgeLo and Wiseguy like this.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,517

    The owners of buildings similar to the one that collapsed are often not interested in paying more than absolutely necessary to renovate / upgrade the buildings because first the rent they get cannot justify high renovation expenses, and second, they are hoping that the URA or another large property company will buy up the plot for redevelopment, and thereby pay the owner a premium on the flat value.

    When the URA does redevelop, it often drives the poorest people into even more sub standard accommodation. See what happened with the Hanoi Road redevelopment in Tsim Sha Tsui - what were low rent flats, offices and shops have been turned into a high value hotel, shops for luxury brands and serviced apartments. The people who used to live there - they are forced out to areas such as To Kwa Wan.


  4. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    HIGH UP IN THE SKY
    Posts
    744

    60 year old buildings are not old. When was the Rome built?
    What legal rights do building inspectors have in gaining entry into private buildings?
    If there are no structural drawings or any other drawings, what are the building inspectors inspecting for?
    Shouldn't building owners be responsible for their own building and not a government department?
    Building owners should submit a building safety report completed by PE at a regular interval (maybe every 5-10 years) for buildings that are prone to collapse at the expense of the building owner?

    MovingIn07 likes this.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934
    Quote Originally Posted by HongKongFoot:
    I dont know where you get off comparing Rome to HK. There's a difference between building for overlords and building with your own free will.

    Rome was not built by greedy developers who were out to fleece the public.

    It should be law that older buildings be inspected but isnt. If one was to depend on the building owners here to give a shit, well you might as well depend on god to give you your daily bread cause it aint gonna happen in HK.
    How do you know who built Rome or how greedy they were? It was rather a long time ago!

    I think the point that is being made, it that there is nothing inherently unsafe about old buildings - I grew up in a building that was hundreds of years old and whole walls were basically made of mud, cow dung and straw - yet it held up fine. What is important is that there is a legislative environment that REQUIRES property owners to be responsible for the safety of their property - that does not allow adhoc renovations or additions that remove load-bearing walls. This makes both Government/regulators and property owners equally responsible for safety. It seems that if such laws exist here, they are regularly flouted. Perhaps if some of our coppers who can't cope with slap from tai tai's should come off the streets and start chasing down dodgy landlords instead! There appear to be plenty to catch.
    thundacatchergo likes this.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Siu Sai Wan
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeLo:
    You wrote " If some idiot knocks down a load bearing wall then regardless of the age/price etc of the property its gonna collapse"

    please read the headlines as below:

    Inspectors face race to prevent another disaster
    4,000 old buildings will undergo emergency checks in the next month
    So?
    And if you believe this, then obviously you are as stupid as you seem.
    Hong Kong to inspect 4,000 'over aged' buildings after collapse incident | Home >> Other Sections >> Breaking News
    "we are going to set up 40 teams of professional and technical staff to go out to various parts of Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories to inspect these 4,000 buildings. The target is to complete these comprehensive inspection within a month. We will then follow up with the needed remedial action," she added.

    So, 4000 buildings and 40 "teams" in 30 days. So, each team does, say 100 buildings on average within 30 days. Therefore at least 3 buildings per day per team. I don't know what they mean by "comprehensive", but I fail to see how anything comprehensive can be done in such a short time frame.

    They don't even have the teams or a real plan, so I fail to see how the government plan to do it. It is yet another knee-jerk reaction so the public think the government is doing something. Like the over-reaction to the H1N1 and locking down a hotel for 7 days. But, the government can't even give out vaccine for the flu efficiently or effectively.

    The government can't even enact proper legislation to protect new apartment buyers from the developers! What hope does the public have for old buildings?

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Darkside
    Posts
    1,589

    Where were these 'teams' and what were they doing before there was collapsed slum dwelling and 4 dead? Funny how they can find bodies quickly and pay for them after the fact.

    What constitutes a team? How many people, what qualifications, how much experience, what powers? What authority to inspect? What equipment? What standards are being used, what benchmark?

    Absolutely bob hope that they've thought this through.

    Last edited by Load Toad; 31-01-2010 at 10:16 PM.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,072
    Quote Originally Posted by HongKongFoot:
    He said given the number of buildings concerned, this could only be done through visual inspection and for that to be possible, the inspectors needed to be properly trained.

    He said - that as far he knew - the people who were going to lead these teams, were not experienced professionals.

    Their jobs prior to being building inspectors were making beef organ noodle soup. What faith to have in the organization he runs...
    Basically sounds like the same knee-jerk reaction that occurred when that tree fell on that poor girl in Stanley. Maybe these are the same guys that did all the tree surveys, oh yes, and then all the lift cable surveys. Talk about deja vu.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934
    Quote Originally Posted by HongKongFoot:
    Your mud/dung/straw hut was single story, not multi storied without rebar, without maintenance, without standards. Im sure whoever built your hovel had built it so it would fall on your head. The straw in your hut serves as reinforcements like how rebar would be in a building made of concrete.

    If built and designed right any building can last forever. Buildings in San Francisco are a few hundred years old and have withstanded large earthquakes. Why? Cause the occupants didnt go yanking out essential shit like load bearing walls or support beams. The builders didnt go around fucking people over by using substandard shit. And most importantly, when the craftsman built them, they built them to last.
    That was my point.

    Oh and our cottage was 3 story.
    jgl likes this.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,574

    If architetects in HK don't know how to get the interior right, then what hope do they have for the building itself?
    (and yes, I know the role of the engineer, I guess I'm just lumping them in the same pile here)

    One would imagine that Hong Kong, a place where our apartments are tiny, would be beacons of clever, efficient design.
    I understand developers want to make money, but I have a feeling it's more than that... I would even take it to a lower level and suggest it's perhaps just a lack of creative thinking.


Closed Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast