Challenges and Contention
Implementing urban renewal in a densely populated metropolis inevitably leads to clashes of
interests. While improving the living environment of residents in dilapidated buildings and
solving urban decay problems are the primary concerns, consideration must also be made for
the financial viability of projects as well as the needs of the affected residents, such as
compensation and rehousing arrangements, and the desire for maintaining long-established
social networks of the local community. It is also vital to respond to the community’s
aspirations for preserving the local heritage and unique characteristics.
Urban renewal has to deal with the interests of many different stakeholders. In recent years,
there are changing public expectations and aspirations regarding the way it is carried out.
Some challenges have arisen in the following areas:
1. Rehousing and Compensation
There are divided views on the current compensation policy. Some affected property owners
consider it insufficient, while others consider it over-generous.
Compensation for domestic owner-occupiers is equivalent to the market value of their
properties plus a lump sum of ex-gratia allowance (namely Home Purchase Allowance), so as
to enable the owner-occupiers to purchase a notional flat of seven-year-old of similar size in
the same district. The same compensation principle is applied to owners of vacant and
tenanted domestic units yet at a comparatively lower rate of allowance due to differences in
the use of property. Some property owners claim this is unfair, and think that the URA should
compensate them with the same allowance.
Some affected property owners complain of being forced to leave the original area once old
buildings have been demolished. In response to this concern, the URA provides a Flat-for-Flat
option for the affected domestic owner occupiers as an alternative to cash compensation and
ex-gratia payment.
Moreover, as it usually takes time for planning and soliciting approval for implementing a
redevelopment project, the current compensation arrangements may lead to some tenants
being forced to leave their homes by the owners before the property is acquired and hence
losing their eligibility for compensation or rehousing.
Questions
• Should the affected residents be re-housed in the same district? Is it feasible?
• The pros and cons of the “Flat-for-Flat” Scheme?
• Is a “Shop-for-Shop” arrangement practical and feasible (remark: some businesses running
in the old districts, such as garages and funerary shops, in fact have specific needs for suitable
locations and environment)?
• How can the URA help the affected tenants being forced to evict or to have their tenancies
terminated by their landlords, without the risk of being abused by those defraud public money
intentionally?
• Should the compensation for the owner-occupiers and the owners of vacant and tenanted
domestic units be the same? (remark: both of them are already entitled to a compensation
equivalent to the market value of their properties?)
• Is the current compensation policy based on the market value of a seven-year-old flat
appropriate? (remark: will it be a burden to government spending?)
Case studies: Kwun Tong Town Centre project, Sham Shui Po Shun Ning Road project.
2. Reinforcing Public Engagement
Over the years, the URA has close communications with different stakeholders through
various channels when implementing urban renewal projects. These include forming district
advisory committees, communicating with district councils, organising public briefings for
affected residents, conducting opinion surveys and road shows, and so on. All these are done
with the view of providing residents and members of districts with the opportunity to participate
and express their views on the projects, so that the projects can be carried out in a responsive
way to meet the expectations of the majority. Nonetheless, its urban renewal projects still give
rise to many controversies involving the interests of different stakeholders, notably including
ex-gratia payment to property owners, compensation and rehousing for tenants, impacts on
shop operators as well as defining the boundary of redevelopment.
According to the new Urban Renewal Strategy, the Government has resolved to establish
District Urban Renewal Forum to strengthen urban renewal planning at the district level.
However, there are comments that broadening the base of public engagement activities will
probably slow down the pace of urban renewal and attract speculators arising from the
public disclosure of project details.
Questions
• What can be done if contention still prevails after consulting members of the public on the
implementation of a redevelopment project? Are there any suggestions for improvement?
• How can we strike a balance between facilitating early public engagement and preventing
speculation?
• How can we encourage more public engagement while at the same time maintaining the
pace of urban regeneration?
Case Studies: Kwun Tong Town Centre project, Lee Tung Street project
(For more discussion on the strengthening of public engagement, you may visit the website of Urban
Renewal Strategy Review at www.ursreview.gov.hk.)
3. A Sensible Balance between Preservation and Redevelopment
Hong Kong is a small territory with large population. To support its sustainable development as
an international metropolis, urban redevelopment is inevitable. However, some commented
that redevelopment would result in the disappearance of some old landmarks and unique local
characteristics, as were the cases for Bird Street and Cloth Alley. Some concern groups thus
in recent years have expressed strong objections to any redevelopment and urged for total
preservation and conservation, in particular for retaining buildings with people’s collective
memories and local characters.
On the other hand, there are views acknowledging the importance of redevelopment in
improving the living conditions of residents in decaying areas and addressing the problems
arising from dilapidated buildings. It is also considered that redevelopment helps enhance the
townscape of Hong Kong with better landscaping and urban design, bringing new vigour to the
city. It is understandable that there will be demolition of old buildings and disappearance of
local culture associating with the evolution of urban renewal. For instance, open markets are
gradually degenerated and closed at its own pace along with the organic development of some
areas.
Under the new Urban Renewal Strategy, heritage preservation is part of urban renewal and
the URA should preserve heritage buildings if such preservation forms part of its urban
renewal projects. The URA will take into account of the recommendations made by the “District
Urban Renewal Forum” set up by the Government and other factors to implement its urban
renewal projects. It will pursue preservation of historical buildings and unique local
characteristics in a pragmatic manner so as to accomplish the aim of accommodating old and
new.
Questions
• How to make a balance when there are conflicting views on urban renewal (such as
redevelopment of dilapidated buildings) and preservation of local characteristics (such as
retention of open markets)? What factors should be considered in making the judgment?
• Are there any objective criteria governing the retention of old buildings and local
characteristics with collective memory of Hong Kong people?
• What roles should the Government, the URA and property owners play in the process of
redevelopment, building rehabilitation and heritage preservation?
Case Studies: Johnston Road project, Lee Tung Street project and Peel Street/Graham Street project.
4. Roles of the Government and the URA
There are different views on whether the Government or public organisations should take a
leading role in urban regeneration; some have suggested that the Government can invest
more in infrastructure in the vicinity to encourage urban regeneration by private owners and
organisations. However, there are also opinions that public organisations (the URA)
embracing a social mission will be more responsive to the needs of residents and the
sustainable development of the community when embarking on urban renewal initiatives.
In accordance with the new Urban Renewal Strategy, apart from continuing with the existing
implementation mode to initiate redevelopment projects on its own, the URA will also consider
deploying public money and exercising its authority to implement some “demand-led”
redevelopment projects or provide facilitation services to property owners as a facilitator
responding to owners’ aspirations.
There are also divided views on the current self-financing mode of the URA. Supporters
believe that public money should be used prudently, while dissenters argue that this policy will
only drive the URA to pursue projects of higher commercial value, and that give it less financial
power to redevelop projects with low profit-value but high social benefits to the community.
Questions
• Should the strategy of “big market, small government” be adopted for urban renewal? This
means that the Government should simply provide a suitable environment for private sectors
to take the lead in redevelopment.
• Should the URA minimise the efforts in self-initiated redevelopment projects and focus on
“demand-led” projects so as to reduce controversy?
• Should the URA as a public organisation take on the role of a developer? Will its facilitation
services compete with the private sectors for profits?
• Should the target of becoming self-financing in the long run be maintained by the URA? If not,
how can we maintain the long-term operation of urban renewal programmes?
• When conducting evaluation of individual projects, should we only consider the direct
inancial returns derived from the redevelopment projects, or also take into account the indirect
economic benefits that a redevelopment project brings to the local district (for example, the
development of Langham Place in Mong Kok has boosted the economic activities of the
adjacent areas)?
For the relevant discussion, you may visit the website of Urban Renewal Strategy Review at
www.ursreview.gov.hk.