Policy Address should include industrial building redevelopment
Just as the five-month-long public consultation on how to tackle land shortage ended on Sept 26, the debate on land supply will once again be under the spotlight as Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor is going to deliver her second Policy Address in the Legislative Council this week. Lam previously disclosed that housing policy would be a top priority in the coming year and would be discussed together with land supply.
The timing and sequence of these two events suggest that the SAR government will base future housing policies on mainstream public opinion collected from the consultation, so as to reduce resistance when the policies are promoted. In fact, mainstream public opinion is quite clear: People voted favorably for four short-to medium-term options, specifically “developing brownfield sites”, “tapping into private agricultural land reserve in the New Territories”, “alternative uses of sites under private recreational leases” and “relocation and consolidation of land-extensive recreational facilities”. However, employing the public-private partnership model to develop brownfields and private agricultural land evidently was least controversial. As for the medium-to long-term options, “near-shore reclamation outside Victoria Harbour” has become the inevitable choice. These two options can be considered most consistent with the objective environmental conditions of Hong Kong.
Despite the government’s dedication to creating more developable land, I find that those readily available resources — old industrial sites — have clearly been left out among the 18 options featured in the public consultation.
It should be noted that the 1,400-plus industrial buildings scattered around Hong Kong have a total land area of more than 2,000 hectares, which is equal to the size of approximately 120 Victoria Parks. Most of them were built in the 1960s and 1970s.
Old and dilapidated, they have become the eyesore of the city and hinder the development of the community. However, the use of these industrial sites cannot be arbitrarily changed. If owners of industrial buildings apply for a change in land use, they will be subject to an algorithm that puts them at a disadvantage when calculating the required land premium. Therefore, neither dismantling nor reusing the buildings is a good option. Leaving them untouched, however, is a waste of resources.
In August, Lam initiated the discussion about employing an innovative mindset to handle the use of old industrial buildings. She assigned the Development Bureau three tasks: firstly, to re-examine the Revitalizing Industrial Building policy, including whether the scheme should be resumed to assist owners in refurbishing or converting their industrial buildings; secondly, to study, in agreement with the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance, the feasibility of relaxing the restrictions on the use of lower floors of an industrial building; third is to assist owners in consolidating 80 percent of ownership, which is a requirement set out in the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance, in order to be qualified for submitting an application to demolish, redevelop or convert an industrial property.
Lam previously served as the secretary for development and is therefore very familiar with the conditions of industrial properties in Hong Kong. The three proposed innovative solutions precisely target the issues encountered by the existing industrial buildings in the city. In particular, it is apparent that the third approach is to create favorable conditions for dismantling and redeveloping old industrial premises. Although the revitalization policy allows the conversion of these buildings, their usage will still be limited if they cannot be redeveloped to suit the needs of society. These old premises suffered inherent deficiencies in fire-fighting equipment and it is extremely difficult to refit the existing installations to comply with the latest standards. Not only does it require arduous effort and cause nuisance to the public, it also may not achieve the desired results. Consequently, disassembling the old industrial buildings and redeveloping the sites is the best approach.
The benefit of redevelopment lies on replanning the use of industrial sites. Besides commercial buildings or hotels, the original sites can house serviced apartments, studios for cultural and arts activities, creative industries or services catering to the elderly. In addition to having no fire safety concerns, the new premises can be incorporated with green elements and be designed with an aesthetic and practical facade. Redevelopment will benefit the community by creating a better cityscape, and roads or sidewalks can also be widened to cater to the needs of the local community. Redevelopment is far better than refurbishing an unwieldy structure erected several decades ago,and will put the piece of land to good use.
The sites where old industrial buildings are located are developed land in essence; in other words, sites surrounded by basic community facilities, including transport networks, fire stations, police stations, schools, medical centers, water and electricity supply, drainage systems, etc. The government will not have to spend a lot of money to develop these facilities. If the government offers a number of concessionary policies that do not act against public interest, it will provide incentives for owners to redevelop the industrial sites. By then a massive amount of land resources will be instantly made available. Therefore, I hope that the upcoming Policy Address will follow up on the redevelopment of industrial sites since it is a quick fix to the shortage of land supply in Hong Kong.