都市化是社會繁榮進步的必然過程,但同時也衍生了居住環境擠迫、污染和樓宇老化等問題,必須通過市區更新加以改善。

自上世紀五十年代開始,香港經濟迅速發展、人口急增,政府遂進行大規模的城市拓展。隨著時間過去,市區老化問題逐漸浮現。60、70年代,香港很多人居住於擠迫、失修、安全欠佳及殘破不堪的樓宇。人口增長、經濟起飛及市民對優質居所的渴求成為市區更新的動力

於80年代成立的土地發展公司,以及於2001成立取代土地發展公司的市建局,均致力解決市區老化問題,透過不同的市區更新策略,改善舊區居民的生活,締造優質的城市生活,促進可持續發展。




香港市區面對樓宇老化和舊區設施不足的問題,不少市民居住在破舊的居所。2010年1月29日,馬頭圍道一幢55年樓齡的五層高樓宇突然塌下,奪去了四名市民的寶貴生命,可見市區老化問題可以導致嚴重後果。讓我們看看以下統計數字:

香港現時大約有4,000幢樓齡超過50年的樓宇,其中四分之三屬失修或明顯失修:鋼筋生銹、石屎剝落嚴重,成為城市的計時炸彈,造成安全問題。在未來20年,這些樓宇的數目更會增加4倍至16,000幢。

很多破舊樓宇都缺乏基本生活設施,居住環境惡劣。現時約有11萬人居住於這類樓宇,其中不少是弱勢社群。

例如一幢不到500平方呎的舊樓,闢成十多間板間房、籠屋或「棺材房」,十多戶人共用一個廚房和洗手間。這些舊樓夏天的日間氣溫高達攝氏40度。

舊樓廣佈於深水埗、大角咀、旺角、馬頭角和觀塘等多個舊區。









2011年公佈新修訂的《市區重建策略》定出「以人為先,地區為本,與民共議」三大方針,推進香港的市區更新。

根據《市區重建策略》,市區更新的主要目標是:


  重整及重新規劃有關的市區範圍;

  在有關的市區範圍內設計更有效和更環保的地區性交通及道路網絡;

  確保有關市區範圍內的土地用途能互相配合;

  將破舊失修的樓宇重建為符合現代標準而又設計環保的新式樓宇;

  推動市區的可持續發展;

  推動適時保養和復修有需要維修的樓宇;

  保存具歷史、文化和建築學價值的樓宇、地點及構築物;

  在切實可行的範圍內保存地方特色;

  在切實可行的範圍內保存區內居民的社區網絡;

  為有特別需要的人士,例如長者和弱能人士,提供特別設計的房屋;

  提供更多休憩用地和社區/福利設施;以及

  以具吸引力的園林景觀和城市設計美化市容。



市建局重視可持續發展,將其貫徹於市區更新不同階段的工作,亦是各項政策和計劃所持守的原則。除了致力推動環境的可持續發展外,市建局在社會可持續發展方面亦不遺餘力。於2012年下旬,更成立了一個專責團隊統籌市建局的可持續發展工作。

市建局重視可持續發展,將其貫徹於市區更新不同階段的工作,亦是各項政策和計劃所持守的原則。除了致力推動環境的可持續發展外,市建局在社會可持續發展方面亦不遺餘力。於2012年下旬,更成立了一個專責團隊統籌市建局的可持續發展工作。
市建局為發展項目進行設計規劃及建築時,會根據《市區重建策略》的指引及相關法例的要求,在個別項目內盡量加入環保設施,例如:綠化空間、能源效益、節約用水、廢料回收設施、採用環保物料及減少建築廢料等。市建局於2009年特別委託顧問專家,根據市建局過往的環保工作,亦參照其他城市的經驗及現有的環保科技,制定一套全面而可行的環保措施,以為香港市民帶來一個可持續的優質生活環境。
 
能源效益
阻擋太陽高熱的設備、供電系統、公用地方照明及升降機都會依照能源效益守則設計、高節能外牆設計(如節能玻璃)、太陽能熱水系統、智能通風需求控制系統、水冷涼風系統,及熱能恢復系統等。
 
節約用水
低流量的水龍頭及雙閥水廁,以減少排水量。另外,引入冷凝水回收系統,及回收雨水作為淋花或沖廁之用、污水處理循環再用系統。
 
採用環保物料
使用對臭氧層無害的屋宇設備保溫物料,以塑料樽及輪胎循環再造的兒童康樂設施和地墊,以及用循環再造物料製成的戶外地板等。
 
綠化環境
引入綠化環境,包括公共休憩空間、空中花園、垂直綠化帶及美化旁邊街道等。
 
加入廢料回收設施
包括家居廢物分類設施等。
 
減少建築廢料及對環境滋擾
廢料管理計劃,以及引入消減噪音設施等。
  以觀塘市中心重建項目為例,其規劃設計包括透過優化樓宇形態和佈局,減低噪音滋擾和確保空氣流通;保育25棵老樹,並運用垂直及屋頂綠化技術,提供約30%的綠化覆蓋率(是香港最綠化的地域之一);使用水冷式空調系統及混合式空調系統,以降低商業樓宇的能源消耗量。
  市建局致力提倡環保建築設計,無論是自行發展或是與發展商合作的項目中,均引入高環保標準。截至2013年3月,市建局8個重建項目獲得香港綠色建築議會頒發白金級別證書,包括堅尼地城加惠民道的「怡峰」、荃灣市中心的「萬景峯」、大角嘴必發道/洋松街項目「i-home」、櫻桃街的「海桃灣」、洋松街/松樹街項目的「形品。星寓」、西營盤第一街/第二街項目「縉城峰」、灣仔皇后大道東的「Queen's Cube」,以及紅磡必嘉圍的「御悅」。透過訂立高水平的環保標準,優化該8個項目的設計及措施,更能有效地使用資源。這同時帶動一個重要的供應鏈效應,讓項目的住宅單位均有節能和慳水設備,加強環保效益。
 
  根據截至2013年3月,按8個獲得香港綠色建築議會頒發白金級別證書的重建項目計算,市建局達到以下的成果:
 

市建局的項目也特別注重配合個別地區的情況。舉例說,九龍深水埗的人口老化問題比較嚴重,市建局在這個地區的發展項目內的住宅單位,也加設方便長者的設施。此外,為保留及延續一個在項目範圍旁有上百年歷史的露天市集的地區特色,市建局在中環卑利街/嘉咸街的發展計劃中額外投資2億元,將施工期延長兩年,分階段進行工程,並為項目內的濕貨店舖提供臨時店舖,令市集可以延續下去。相信如果市建局不介入,這個市集可能會因為都市自然的發展,和鄰近的市集一樣,逐漸消失。
 

市建局的收購、現金補償或安置政策能夠改善受影響家庭的居住環境。以觀塘市中心項目為例,由市建局委託香港中文大學進行的社會影響追踪研究報告顯示,超過70%的受訪者(受影響住戶)滿意搬遷後的生活環境得到改善,85%的受訪者(非住宅) 亦搬遷到區內較理想的地方繼續經營業務。

根據2012/2013財政年度進行中的項目計算:

 
而為了更多元化使用城市空間,市建局在已收購項目及保育項目內,以優惠租金提供地方予非政府組織及社會企業使用,當中包括匡智會、香港青年協會及新生精神康復會。於2012/2013年財政年度,市建局提供了:
 
  另外,除了透過重建和復修協助居民改善居住環境和提升地區經濟外,市建局亦支持把藝術文化注入市區更新工作,推行社區文化藝術計劃,全面提升舊區居民的生活質素。

市建局在推行市區更新的工作時,亦有助促進地區經濟。市建局的其中一個工作重點就是「更新舊區,促進經濟,改善環境,造福社群」。重建發展可以煥發舊區潛藏的經濟活力,也提升周邊地區經濟活動,旺角朗豪坊是一個例子。近年市建局的項目將增加臨街的商店、小街小舖,以保持街道的活力。這些項目有助提升街道設施和外觀,除惠及居民外,亦可吸引人流,刺激經濟活動。透過樓宇復修,舊樓的價值能得以提升,亦可令舊樓市場注入生氣。

樓宇復修不但可延長建築物的使用年期,並有效減少因拆卸樓宇所產生的建築廢物,從而減輕不敷應用的堆填區的負荷。樓宇復修在改善樓宇安全和美化市容的同時,亦為相關行業創造更多就業機會。
 

在一個人口稠密、寸金尺土的國際大都市推行市區更新,既要改善舊區居民生活環境和解決舊區老化,亦要照顧受影響居民不同的訴求和考慮財政上的可行性。此外,對保育和維持地區特色的呼聲也不能忽略。市區更新涉及眾多持份者,加上近年社會對市區更新有不同的期望,令市區更新工作一直面對爭議,其中的爭議主要來自以下方面:


在一個人口稠密、寸金尺土的國際大都市推行市區更新,既要改善舊區居民生活環境和解決舊區老化,亦要照顧受影響居民的不同訴求和考慮財政上的可行性。市區更新涉及眾多持份者,加上近年社會對市區更新有不同的期望,令市區更新工作一直面對爭議,其中的爭議主要來自以下方面:

 

賠償安排往往備受爭議。一些受影響業主認為現時補償不足夠,亦有市民認為太慷慨,各方意見不一。

「七年樓齡」補償機制提供給自住業主其物業的市值及一筆額外津貼(自置居所津貼),令他們可以在同區購買一個「七年樓齡」面積相約的單位居住。而非自住業主則獲得其物業的市值及一筆額外津貼(由於性質不同,津貼額比自住業主相對為少)。有業主認為這安排對他們不公平,認為市建局應該給所有業主同等的津貼。

有受影響業主投訴沒有選擇地被逼遷離原來社區,就此問題,市建局為2011年2月24日宣布新的《市區重建策略》之後開展的項目,提供「樓換樓」方案,供受市建局重建項目影響的自住業主作為現金補償及特惠金以外的另一選擇。

重建項目的規劃審批需要一段頗長的時間,在期間可能有租客遭業主迫遷或終止租約而失去獲得賠償或安置的資格。

受重建影響的居民應該得到原區安置嗎?是否實際可行?
(註:市區公屋單位數量都是有限的)
「樓換樓」安排的利與弊?
「舖換舖」的安排是否實際可行?
(註:部分於舊區經營的商舖,如車房、殯儀店及五金舖等,其地點及環境均有特別要求)
市建局應如何幫助那些被業主迫遷的租客,而不會被一些蓄意欺騙公帑的人士濫用?
自住業主及非自住業主所得的津貼應否一樣?
(註:他們已獲得其物業的市值價)
「七年樓齡」的補償機制是否適當?
(註:公帑是否可以負擔?)
參考個案:


多年來,市建局在推行市區更新項目時,都會透過不同渠道和各持份者溝通,例如透過地區諮詢委員會、區議會、居民會、意見調查和路演展覽等,讓居民和地區人士參與和表達意見,希望項目可以符合大多數市民和居民的期望。雖然如此,市區更新畢竟是一個非常爭議性的課題,當中牽涉不同持份者的利益,例如業主的津貼補償、租客的賠償和安置安排、商戶的生計影響、重建範圍的納入與否等。

根據2011年修訂的《市區重建策略》,政府決定設立地區諮詢平台,以加強地區參與市區更新的規劃。然而,有意見認為加強公眾參與可能會減慢市區更新的步伐,亦可能由於項目資料公開而吸引投機者(俗稱釘子戶)進駐。

為何市建局進行了公眾諮詢工作後,項目仍然引起爭議?有沒有可行的改善方法?
如何在盡早讓公眾參與和避免投機之間取得平衡?
如何能既鼓勵公眾參與,同時又不會減慢市區更新的速度?
參考個案:
(有關加強公眾參與的討論亦可參考市區重建策略檢討網頁
www.ursreview.gov.hk
   
   
   


香港地少人多,要持續發展成為國際大都會,重建是無可避免的,但有評論指重建會令一些特色街道和地區文化消失,例如雀仔街、花布街和喜帖街等。因此,近年一些人士強烈反對任何重建,認為要全面保育,特別是要保育一些荷載香港人集體回憶的舊建築和本土文化。但亦有另一方的意見認為,重建是必須的,既可改善舊區的惡劣居住環境和解決殘破失修樓宇的問題,又可以提升香港的城市面貌,而在重建時一些舊建築被拆卸或地區文化的消失亦在所難免,例如一些露天市集也由於地區的自然發展,漸漸地萎縮和消失了。

新修訂的《市區重建策略》列明,文物保育是市區更新的一部分,市建局應保存市區更新項目範圍內的歷史建築物。市建局會參考政府所成立的「地區諮詢平台」的建議及考慮其他因素去推行市區更新工作,並按實際可行的情況去保存歷史文物和特有的地區特色,以期達致市區更新的新舊兼容的目標。

當城市發展(如重建失修舊樓)和保育地區文化特色(如保留露天市集)之間出現矛盾時,應如何作出取捨及考慮什麼因素?
在保留香港人集體回憶的建築和地區特色這個議題上,有沒有一些客觀的估量標準?
在重建發展、樓宇復修和文物保育方面,政府、市建局和業主應各自負起甚麼責任?
參考個案:


關於政府或公營機構應否在市區更新擔當牽頭的角色,社會上有不同意見。有建議指政府可改善舊區內的基建設施,作為誘因讓業主及私營機構自發地進行市區更新。但亦有意見認為公營機構(市建局)有社會使命,進行市區更新的工作時會更關注居民的生活和社區的可持續發展。

根據新的《市區重建策略》,市建局除了一如以往自行開展重建項目外,亦會回應業主的需求,考慮是否運用公帑和公權去執行一些「需求主導」的重建項目,或以促進者的角色向業主提供中介服務。

此外,就市建局現行的財政自給的模式,社會人士意見紛紜。支持者認為使用公帑須謹慎,反對者則認為這只會迫使市建局爭取較大商業利益,亦令其欠缺財力推行一些無利可圖但具社會效益的項目。

市區更新應否採用「大市場、小政府」策略,即政府只應提供適當的環境,而讓私營機構在重建發展擔當主要角色?
市建局應否減少自行開展重建項目,集中進行「需求主導」的項目,以減少爭議?
市建局作為公營機構,應否擔當發展商的角色?其中介服務亦會否與民爭利?
市建局應否維持「長遠而言,財政自給」這目標?若否,如何維持市區更新計劃能長期運作?是否動用大量公帑?

市建局是否應該在其項目興建「樓換樓」或「資助房屋」?如是,市建局的財務安排如何可以應付?

市建局在重建項目收購所有業權後,一般會將重建項目交給地產商發展,與地產商合作興建新式樓宇,這會否令人解讀為市區更新只是將舊區「豪宅化」?
(有關討論亦可參考市區重建策略檢討網頁 www.ursreview.gov.hk

 
 
 
 
   
 
   
  1) 市區重建局季刊 《建聞》
 
《建聞》
 
  2) 市區重建策略檢討「建立共識」階段公眾意見總結及展望文件
 
公眾意見總結及展望文件
   
  3) 觀塘市中心重建計劃 — 公眾諮詢文件:請參考市建局網頁
   
  4) 觀塘市中心重建計劃 — 公眾諮詢報告:請參考市建局網頁
   
  5) 邁向市區更新3.0 刊物:請參考市建局網頁
   
  6) 2011 年2 月由發展局發布的《市區重建策略》
 
《市區重建策略》
 
  7) 2010 年10 月26 日發展局發表關於"以人為先:從地區出發,與民共議的市區更新工作方針 —《市區重建策略》檢討"的立法會參考資料摘要
 
《市區重建策略》檢討
 
  8) 2010 年10 月26 日發展局簡介《市區重建策略》擬稿
 
《市區重建策略》檢討
 
  9) 2010 年5 月25 日發展事務委員會與政府當局討論《市區重建策略》檢討
 
立法會資料文件
背景資料簡介
會議紀要
 
  10) 2010 年2月23 日發展事務委員會與政府當局討論《市區重建策略》檢討
 
立法會資料文件
背景資料簡介
會議紀要
 
  11) 2009 年6 月23 日立法會發展事務委員會匯報市區重建局工作進展:
 
市區重建局的工作進展
 
  12) 2009 年4 月15 日立法會發展事務委員會匯報《市區重建策略》檢討認定的主要事項
 
討論文件
 
  13) 2009 年1 月20 日發展局滙報《市區重建策略》檢討的進度
 
立法會討論文件
立法會資料文件
 
  14) 2008 年7 月17 日發展局正式展開檢討《市區重建策略》的工作
 
立法會資料文件
 
  15) 2008 年6 月24 日立法會發展事務委員會討論《市區重建策略》及市建局的工作
 
《市區重建策略》檢討的資料文件
市建局的工作資料文件
會議紀要
 
  16) 2001 年11 月政府公布《巿區重建策略》
 
市區重建策略
   
  17) 2001年3月10日立法會財務委員會
 
討論文件
會議紀要
   




Urbanisation is an inevitable outcome of societal advancement. But it brings along various problems like overcrowding, pollution and urban decay etc. which generate a dire need of urban renewal.

Since the 1950s, Hong Kong has experienced rapid economic growth accompanied by a surge in population that has seen the Government undertake urban development projects spanning the territory. With the passing of time, this led to problems of urban decay in some areas. In the 1960s and 70s, many people in Hong Kong lived in overcrowded, obsolete, unsafe and dilapidated buildings.  The pressure of population increase, rapid economic growth and the demand for quality housing eventually drove the need for urban renewal.

The Land Development Corporation (LDC), set up in the 1980s, was later replaced by the URA established in 2001. Both organisations, through different urban renewal strategies, have devoted to tackling the problems of urban decay, improving the living conditions of the residents in run-down areas, and creating a quality urban life for sustainability.


Some urban districts in Hong Kong are facing the problems of ageing buildings and inadequate community facilities. Those dilapidated buildings are homes of many people. The collapse of a five-storey, 55-year old building in Ma Tau Wai Road left four people dead on 29 January 2010 tells us how serious the urban decay problem has become. Let's look at some figures:

Hong Kong has approximately 4,000 buildings built over 50 years ago. Of these old buildings, three-quarters are seriously dilapidated, suffering from problems such as defective concrete and corrosion of steel reinforcing beams. This makes them “time bombs” in the city and a potential public safety hazard. In the next 20 years, the number of these dangerous buildings is expected to increase fourfold to 16,000.

There are approximately 110,000 people especially the underprivileged groups in our society living in poor and squalid environment where there is a total absence of basic amenities.

For example, a typical flat of less than 500 square feet is subdivided into more than 10 small cubicles or cage homes or coffin-sized units, and the households who live there have to share only one kitchen and one bathroom. The daytime temperature in their accommodations in summer might reach as high as 40 degrees centigrade.

Such run-down, slum housing is commonplace in old districts such as Sham Shui Po, Tai Kok Tsui, Mong Kok, Ma Tau Kok and Kwun Tong. In fact, many people still live in cubicles and tiny cocklofts on Staunton Street, which is walking distance from the SOHO area in Central.









The Urban Renewal Strategy (URS) promulgated in 2011 stipulates a “people first, district-based and public participatory” approach for urban renewal in Hong Kong.

According to the URS, the main objectives of urban renewal are:

  Restructuring and replanning of concerned urban areas;

  Designing more effective and environmentally-friendly local transport and road networks within the concerned urban areas;

  Rationalising land use within the concerned urban areas;

  Redeveloping dilapidated buildings into new buildings with modern standard and environmentally-friendly design;

  Promoting sustainable development in the urban areas;

  Promoting the timely maintenance and rehabilitation of buildings in need of repair;

  Preserving buildings, sites and structures of historical, cultural or architectural value if such preservation forms parts of URA's urban renewal projects;

  Preserving as far as practicable local characteristics;

  Retaining as far as practicable the social networks of the local community;

  Providing purpose-built housing for groups with special needs, such as the elderly and the disabled;

  Providing more open space and community / welfare facilities; and

  Enhancing the townscape with attractive landscape and urban design.



Sustainability is URA’s corporate commitment. It interweaves the various stages of urban renewal as well as being a tenet that drives our policies and operations. In addition to environmental sustainable efforts, we are also committed to ensuring social sustainability in our work. In the latter half of 2012, a dedicated team was set up to coordinate our sustainability efforts.

The URA endeavours to promote and implement environmentally sustainable development. To this end, we have stipulated that the design and construction of our redevelopment projects must, in keeping with the Urban Renewal Strategy (URS) and related regulatory requirements, incorporate green initiatives with respect to greening, energy efficiency, water conservation, facilities for collection of recyclable waste, use of recycled materials and reduction of construction waste. To take our environmental initiatives forward, the URA has engaged an environmental consultant in 2009 to develop a comprehensive policy drawing on URA's past work as well as making reference to relevant overseas experience and existing technology.
 
  Energy Efficiency
  Sun-shading provisions, energy efficiency of electrical, lighting, lift and escalator installations, high thermal performance structural fabric (e.g. low e-glass), solar hot water system, energy saving air-conditioning devices, water-cooled chiller system, heat recovery system, etc.
 
  Water Conservation
  Dual flushing/low volume cistern, condensate collection system and rain-water collection system for irrigation or flushing, grey water recycling system, etc.
 
  Environmentally-Friendly Building Materials
  Materials non-damaging to ozone, recycled plastic bottles and rubber tyres for children's playground flooring, recycled plastic and wood wastes for flooring of landscaped areas, etc.
 
Greening
Landscaped open space, roof garden, vertical greening, street planting, etc.
 
Facilities for Collection of Recyclable Waste
Domestic waste, etc.
 
Reduction of Construction Waste and Environmental Nuisance
Waste management plan, introduction of noise mitigation measures, etc.
  The redevelopment of Kwun Tong Town Centre illustrates a comprehensive and visionary design that includes optimisation of the disposition and form of buildings to ensure adequate noise mitigation and air ventilation; preservation of 25 old trees and the employment of vertical and rooftop greenery techniques to provide a green coverage of around 30% (making it one of the greenest spots in the city); utilisation of water-cooled chillers and mixed-mode air-conditioning system in the commercial portion to lower the energy consumption.
 

URA recognises that it is in a position to be an advocate of green building design as part of urban renewal, and high environmental standards are therefore imposed on both our self-developed projects and projects that are implemented through joint ventures. Eight redevelopment projects have achieved the Hong Kong BEAM Platinum (Final) rating as of March 2013, of which are Mount Davis 33 in Kennedy Town, Vision City in Tsuen Wan, i-home, Florient Rise and Lime Stardom in Tai Kok Tsui, Island Crest in Sai Ying Pun, Queen's Cube in Wan Chai and Baker Residences in Hung Hom. Setting a high green building standard for these eight projects has motivated the respective designs to optimise use of resources through various measures. It also propagates an important supply chain effect on the downstream consumers as the residential flats were installed with energy-efficient and water-efficient appliances.

 
  As of March 2013, the 8 accredited projects with BEAM Platinum (Final) Rating by the Hong Kong Green Building Council have achieved:
 


The URA’s projects also take into account the local characteristics of individual district. For instance, in view of the higher proportion of elderly in Sham Shui Po, the URA has planned to incorporate elderly-friendly design features for the flats in the district. Another example is a century-old street market. In order to preserve and sustain this market near the site of the Graham Street/Peel Street Development Scheme in Central, the URA invested an extra of HK$200 million and prolonged the schedule for two years so that the project could be implemented by phases to provide temporary shops for shops selling perishable goods. Such arrangements help sustaining the market vibrancy. Without URA’s intervention, the market might have degenerated like other markets in the neighbourhood.

 

The URA’s acquisition policy comprises cash compensation or rehousing, both of which can improve the living standards of affected households. For example, among the respondents in a social impact tracking study commissioned by the URA and undertaken by the Chinese University of Hong Kong for the Kwun Tong Town Centre project, more than 70% of affected domestic respondents feel satisfied with their improved quality of living after relocation while 85% of non-domestic respondents have continued business in better premises in the district after relocation.

According to the ongoing projects during the 2012/2013 financial year, 244 eligible tenant households were compensated with cash and 107 eligible tenant households were re-housed in public housing estates of which 98% were re-housed in urban areas.

 
To embrace more diversified uses of the urban space, the URA has offered concessionary tenancy to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and social enterprises (SEs) both in our acquired properties and dedicated preserved historical buildings, e.g. Hong Chi Association, Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups and New Life Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association. For 2012/13 financial year, the URA provided:
 
 

Besides redevelopment and rehabilitation to improve the living conditions and economy in the old districts, the URA also brings arts and culture to the local community, with an aim to integrate arts and cultural elements in urban renewal, to enhance the quality of living of those residents.



Urban renewal projects also bring benefits to local economies. One of the URA’s major tasks is to revitalise old districts by enhancing the socio-economic and environmental fabric for the benefit of the community. Redevelopment can unleash the hidden economic energy of old districts, and also boost economic activity in the surrounding areas. Langham Place in Mong Kok is a good example of such. Recent URA projects have also increased the number of street shops and small shops with particular attention to maintaining the street vibrancy. These projects have contributed to improved streetscapes that have benefited local residents and increased patronage flow, boosting local businesses. In addition, Rehabilitation can enhance the value of old buildings, hence revitalising the secondary market of old buildings.

By extending the useful life of the buildings concerned, rehabilitation effectively contributes to the reduction of solid waste that may otherwise be generated during building demolition, thereby lessening the burden on our landfills which are nearing their capacities. While improving building safety and cityscape, rehabilitation can achieve the dual objectives of creating more job opportunities in the related sectors.
 
 


Implementing urban renewal in a densely populated metropolis has to maintain a good balance of interests of different stakeholders. While improving the living environment of residents in dilapidated buildings and solving urban decay problems are the primary concerns, consideration must also be given to the various concerns of the affected residents as well as the financial viability of projects. Urban renewal involves the interests of many different stakeholders. In recent years, there are different public expectations and aspirations regarding the way it is carried out. Some challenges have arisen from the following:

 

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 complained of being forced to leave the community where they used to live.  In response to this concern, the URA offers a Flat-for-Flat (FFF) option, as an alternative to cash compensation, to domestic owner-occupiers affected by the URA's redevelopment projects after the promulgation of the new Urban Renewal Strategy promulgated on 24 February 2011.

Moreover, as it usually takes time for planning and soliciting approval for implementing a redevelopment project, the current compensation arrangements may lead to eviction of some tenants by landlords before the property is acquired and hence losing their eligibility for compensation or rehousing.

   
 
  Should the affected residents be re-housed in the same district? Is it feasible? (Remarks: The public housing units in urban areas are limited in supply.)
 
     
 
  The pros and cons of the “Flat-for-Flat” Scheme?
 
     
 
  Is a "Shop-for-Shop" arrangement practical and feasible? (Remarks: Some businesses running in the old districts, such as garages, funerary shops and hardware shops, in fact have specific requirements for locations and operation.)
 
     
 
  How can the URA help the affected tenants being evicted 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? (Remarks: 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 notional replacement flat of seven-year-old appropriate? (Remarks: Will it be a financial burden to public money?)
 
  Case studies:  
   


Over the years, the URA has maintained close communication with different stakeholders through various channels when implementing urban renewal projects. These include district advisory committees, district councils, public briefings for affected residents, opinion surveys and road shows, and so on, with a view of providing the residents and members of districts with the opportunity to participate and express views, so that projects can be implemented in a responsive way to meet their needs and aspirations. Nonetheless, urban renewal is a challenging topic as it involves 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 areas.

The Urban Renewal Strategy promulgated in 2011 called for the setting up of “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.


   
  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:


For more discussion on the public engagement, you may visit the website of Urban Renewal Strategy Review at www.ursreview.gov.hk
   
   
   


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, Cloth Alley and Wedding Card Street, etc. 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 characteristics 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 both the old and the new.


   
  How to strike 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:


There are different views on the involvement of statutory powers in urban renewal. Some have suggested that the Government can invest more in infrastructure in the vicinity to encourage urban regeneration by property owners and private sectors. 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 some argue that this policy will only drive the URA to pursue projects of higher commercial value and that give it less financial resources to carry out projects with low profit value but high social benefits to the community.

   
  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 URA maintain the mode of self-financing? If not, how could the URA ensure sufficient resources for long-term operation of urban renewal programmes? Should large amount of public money be used?    
  Should the URA build “Flat-for-Flat” or “subsidised housing” units in its projects? If yes, how could the URA financially sustain?    
  Upon completion of acquisition and site clearance, the URA usually adopts joint venture partnership with developers to implement redevelopment projects, will this bring about the perception of gentrification?    
(For the relevant discussion, you may visit the website of Urban Renewal Strategy Review at www.ursreview.gov.hk ) 

 
 
 
 
   
 
   
  1) URA Quarterly e-newsletter "Connect"
 
Connect
 
  2) Urban Renewal Strategy Review – Consensus Building - The Public Views and Future Direction Paper for the Consensus Building Stage of the Urban Renewal Strategy Review
 
The Public Views and Future Direction Paper for the Consensus Building Stage of the Urban Renewal Strategy Review  
   
  3) Kwun Tong Town Centre Project - Public Consultation Document: Please refer to URA website
   
  4) Kwun Tong Town Centre Project - Public Consultation Report (Chinese version only) : Please refer to URA website
   
  5) Publication - Towards Urban Renewal 3.0: Please refer to URA website
   
  6) Urban Renewal Strategy promulgated by Development Bureau in Feb 2011
 
Urban Renewal Strategy
 
  7) Brief on People First: A district-based and public participatory approach to urban renewal – "Urban Renewal Strategy Review" by the Legislative Council on 26 October 2010
 
Administration's paper on Urban Renewal Strategy Review
 
  8) Introduction on the texts of the new Urban Renewal Strategy (URS) by Development Bureau on 26 October
 
Administration's paper on Urban Renewal Strategy Review 2010
 
  9) Discussion of the review of the Urban Renewal Strategy by the Legislative Council Panel on Development on 25 May 2010
 
Legislative Council Documents: Administration's paper on review of the Urban Renewal Strategy - Stage 3 Public Engagement
Background Information: Paper on review of the Urban Renewal Strategy prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat (Updated background brief)
Minutes of Meeting
 
  10) Discussion of the review of the Urban Renewal by the Legislative Council Panel on Development on 23 February 2010
 
Legislative Council Documents: Administration's paper on review of the Urban Renewal Strategy
Background Information: Paper on review of the Urban Renewal Strategy prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat (Updated background brief)
Minutes of Meeting
 
  11) Report on the Progress of work of the Urban Renewal Authority by the Legislative Council Panel on Development on 23 June 2009
 
Administration's paper on progress of work of the Urban Renewal Authority
 
  12) Report on the key issues of the review of the Urban Renewal Strategy by the Legislative Council Panel on Development on 15 April 2009
 
Administration's paper on review of the Urban Renewal Strategy
 
  13) Report on the Progress of review of the Urban Renewal Strategy by the Legislative Council Panel on Development on 20 January 2009
 
Legislative Council Documents: Administration's paper on review of the Urban Renewal Strategy
Legislative Council Documents: Paper on Urban Renewal Strategy prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat (Background brief)
 
  14) Document on the Launch of the review of the Urban Renewal Strategy by the Panel on Development on 17 July 2008
 
Review of the Urban Renewal Strategy
 
  15) Urban Renewal Strategy and the work of the URA were discussed at the meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Development on 24 June 2008
 
Legislative Council Documents: Administration's paper on review of the Urban Renewal Strategy
Legislative Council Documents: Progress of Work of the Urban Renewal Authority
Minutes of Meeting (Chinese version only)
 
  16) Urban Renewal Strategy promulgated in November 2001
 
Urban Renewal Strategy
   
  17) Financial Committee of the Legistlative Council on 10 March 2001
 
Discussion paper
Minutes of meeting
   

More about Urban Renewal
Redevelopment

Kwun Tong Town Centre Project

Demand-led Redevelopment Project (Pilot Scheme)
Rehabilitation
Heritage Preservation & Revitalisation

Mallory Street / Burrows Street Revitalisation Project:

Sheung Wan Cultural Square (formerly known as the Sheung Wan Fong)
 
 
         
   
 
     
         
     
 
 
 


為配合社會的發展和需要,香港在過去不同年代均實施不同的市區更新策略和計劃。

為了更有系統地處理香港的市區老化問題,土地發展公司(土發公司)於1988年1月根據法例正式成立,透過與私人發展商合作,完成了16個市區重建項目,啟動了10項計劃,也公布了25個項目。一些成功的重建項目包括中環租庇利街/皇后大道中項目(即今日的中環中心)、永樂街/皇后大道中項目(即今日的新紀元廣場)、旺角亞皆老街/上海街項目(即今日的朗豪坊)。這些工作為殘舊社區注入新活力及帶來裨益,亦為未來的市區更新奠下重要基礎。90年代末,市區更新的迫切性得到社會的認同,大家均認為要以新思維去提升市區更新的效率、效果及持續發展。1997年,香港特區行政長官發表首份施政報告,提出須加快市區更新的步伐。

立法會於2000年6月通過《市區重建局條例》,立法會財務委員會亦於2001年3月通過政府收回土地的補償政策,該政策成為市建局制定其補償政策的基礎。市建局於2001年5月正式成立,取代土發公司,並根據政府於2001年11月公布的《市區重建策略》內的指引,開展香港市區更新的新里程,包括優先處理土發公司於1998年公布而尚未開展的25個重建項目。

為配合社會的發展需要,政府於2008年就《市區重建策略》檢討展開兩年的廣泛諮詢,藉此總結經驗、前瞻未來,為市區更新尋找實際可行的新路向。政府於2011年2月公布了新修訂的《市區重建策略》,並定出「以人為先,地區為本,與民共議」三大原則,作為推進香港市區更新的工作方針。

根據2011年的《市區重建策略》,重建發展及樓宇復修是市建局的核心任務。市建局亦會在其重建項目範圍內保存歷史建築。

在該《市區重建策略》之下,市建局會繼續迎戰舊區老化,致力市區更新,包括:

  • 協助居住在殘破失修樓宇的居民,改善他們的生活環境;
  • 通過市區更新計劃,改善舊區面貌;
  • 增建更多面向大眾市場的樓宇;
  • 在市建局項目內,保育建築文物,保留城市歷史面貌;
  • 大力支持環保,全力推動環境可持續發展;及
  • 擴大社區參與,與公眾攜手,善用政府資源,共同更新市區,創造未來。

 


重建發展將環境惡劣、殘破失修的樓宇,重建成符合現代生活標準及優質生活的樓宇,尤其是在環保及節能效應方面。透過綜合規劃,重建發展亦可改善基建設施、提供交通及環保設施、增添更多的公眾休憩用地、綠化環境及社區設施用地,為整體社區帶來裨益。

市建局至今已開展超過50個重建項目,共提供約37,000平方米公共休憩空間和約75,000平方米政府/團體/社區設施用地。為顧及社會整體利益,重建計劃會預留商業樓面予社會企業,以及向慈善及非政府機構提供地方作社會及教育用途,並只收取象徵式租金。

為了更有效地解決市區老化問題,市建局按2011年的《市區重建策略》,以更多元化的模式進行重建工作,以回應業主的訴求。除了自行開展重建項目外,市建局亦採取「需求主導」及「促進者」中介服務模式,三管齊下推動香港的市區重建工作。

市建局自行開展重建項目
「需求主導」- 大廈業主聯合向市建局申請在其地段/大廈開展重建項目
「促進者」- 業主聯合向市建局提出申請 ,要求市建局提供中介服務,協助他們集合土地業權聯合出售
 



「需求主導」模式給予業主提出重建的機會,體現「由下而上」的精神,亦有助加快重建步伐。市建局會就大廈業主聯合建議重建其地段 / 大廈的事宜作出回應。經考慮有關樓宇狀况、規劃上的裨益及其他因素後,市建局如接納其申請及得到財政司司長的批准,會作為「執行者」,按照《市區重建局條例》,使用公權和公帑來啟動有關的重建工作。

截至2013年12月,市建局已啟動了八個「需求主導」重建項目,包括:







至於在「促進者」中介服務的模式下,市建局會協助業主集合業權,聯合出售,但不涉及收購、補償、安置或收回土地的工作,亦不會動用公權和公帑進行重建。首個成功項目位於九龍城獅子石道67至71號(詳情)。



樓宇復修是舊區更新的重要一環,既可有效改善居住環境,亦可減慢市區老化的速度,從而減輕重建的壓力,並可保留社區網絡,切合政府的可持續發展政策。市建局自2004年開始,向業主提供物料資助和免息貸款計劃,以及其他援助,包括困難戶資助計劃、第三者風險保險資助計劃及專業工程顧問費用資助等,目的是要推動他們齊心協力,做好大廈維修,令居住環境更耐用、安全、衛生、美觀。事實上,樓宇復修是多贏方案,業主可以擁有較理想的居住環境和更高的物業價值,亦令地區面貌得以提升。

為了更妥善運用資源及更有效地推動樓宇復修,一套統一而全面的「樓宇維修綜合支援計劃」已於2011年4月1日推出。計劃包括四大範疇:

供籌組業主立案法團的資助
大廈公用地方維修津貼
大廈公用地方維修免息貸款
家居維修免息貸款

市建局亦為業主提供一站式的服務和支援,包括設立熱線服務及資源中心,以及樓宇外牆顏色設計及技術支援等服務。由2015年7月1日起,市建局的樓宇維修服務範圍覆蓋全港,並整合及優化「樓宇維修綜合支援計劃」,包括在「公共地方維修津貼」中新增「環保項目津貼」,鼓勵業主在維修時採用環保物料或加裝節能裝置。



市建局的樓宇復修計劃已協助超過500幢大廈的業主完成樓宇復修工程。樓宇復修工程包括內/外牆翻新、排污系統、沖廁及公共食水喉管、天台防水工程、電力與消防裝置更新等。

2009年政府推行「樓宇更新大行動」,共耗資35億元。除了撥款1億5千萬元外,市建局亦在其服務區內推行該計劃,為業主提供技術支援,令約1,500幢樓宇內的業主受惠。

另外,為配合屋宇署推出的「強制驗樓計劃」,市建局亦推出相關的資助計劃,協助合資格樓宇的業主驗樓。

 
 





市建局會在重建項目範圍內,保育有顯著文物價值的歷史建築,以務實的手法進行保育,並結合創意的設計,將建築物活化再用,以用作創意、文化、娛樂及商業等不同用途,讓市民大眾共同享用。如果得到政府的支持,市建局亦會進行重建項目範圍以外的保育活化項目。

市建局亦進行多個活化項目,以及在重建和復修項目附近推行街道美化工程,全面提升地區環境。



    • 作文化創意產業用途的灣仔茂蘿街「藝術社區」活化項目,已於2013年7月正式啟用,成為香港首個「動漫基地」。

    • 活化中環百子里以興建一個以「中國革命之源」為題的公園,表彰該地方與1911年辛亥革命的密切連繫。

    • 前中環街市大樓將打造成為「城中綠洲」。

    • 在多個重建項目內保育了數十幢歷史建築,包括在上海街及太子道西保育及活化兩列珍貴的戰前騎樓建築群。

    • 灣仔莊士敦道重建項目內的4幢唐樓及1幢戰前樓宇,經過6年的規劃及翻新工程,現已被活化成特色食肆,與旁邊的新大廈並立,體現「新舊共融」的市區更新精神。

    • 在灣仔道/太原街重建項目內,採取主體保育的方式,保留了灣仔街市大樓。

    • 盡量保存重建範圍內及附近的地區特色,例子包括卑利街/嘉咸街發展計劃範圍外的一個百年露天市集、以及洗衣街項目的「體育用品城」設計主題。

    • 上環西港城旁的公眾用地改建成「上環文化廣場」,成為區內一個多用途的社區廣場,為上環區注入新動力。

    • 在大角咀、荃灣及尖沙咀的重建和復修項目附近,進行了多條街道美化工程。

     





市建熱身練習場的設計配合小學常識科課程,內容強調議題的探究、多重視角、獨立思考、專題研習等教學方式及重點,大部分活動可於校內進行。教師可按需要修改活動內容,務求更切合實際情況和個別學科的教學用途。

 

此4個活動,幫助學生以循序漸進的方式學習。

  注意事項:

  在適當時候提供意見,刺激學生進一步思考,
但避免操縱探究方向,使討論內容更豐富。
  嘗試營造接納包容的氣氛,培養學生開放、
客觀和尊重不同意見的態度。
  幫助學生了解不同界別人士的背景和價值觀,辨析他們所持的「主觀」
看法及意見,同時評鑑和詮釋「客觀」的資料和知識。
  幫助學生理解市區更新的願景;使他們靈活地從當下、過去、未來等
不同角度,去明白為甚麼市區更新會引來正面和負面評價。

 


 
市建熱身練習場的設計配合初中綜合人文科生活與社會課程及高中地理科和通識教育科的課程,為教師提供合適的教學資源和活動指引,從中認識香港的市區更新議題和市建局的角色,繼而探討市區更新對香港的社會發展、經濟、文化和環境的影響。

此部分的活動特別適合以下教學單元:
 
 
範疇一:個人與群性發展

研習市區更新項目的過程及所涉的爭議,有助學生認識社會中的不同群體和社群,並思考市區發展與文化承傳的平衡。此外,透過認識市建局的保育項目,亦有助學生欣賞本地文物及了解文化遺產。
 

範疇五:資源與經濟活動

透過認識、研習市建局的發展項目,讓學生們對香港經濟有進一步認識,了解香港不同社區的各種經濟結構,同時明白如何藉重建、復修,保持並提高整個香港的競爭力。另一方面,學生亦可在學習過程中,從微觀和宏觀兩個角度,理解市區更新、經濟發展、保育活化和民生等各種問題,然後對社會各界意見和政府政策作出評論。

 
 
透過探討不同的市區更新項目,讓學生通過觀察和分析地圖、圖片和相關數據,闡釋資料,以識別問題和提出可行的方案。如此,學生將認識相關地區的區位、分佈、形態等,並了解人的活動如何影響地區的自然環境和人文,以及認識地區的過去、現在,並為未來作好規劃。本教材套也有助學生探究環境的局限性及問題,思考如何推動城市可持續發展,並學習尊重不同的文化、價值觀及生活方式。
 
 

單元二「今日香港」

從認識香港的市區老化問題及市區更新工作,了解居民的生活素質如何得到改善,並探討香港社會的需要和問題、香港的經濟發展歷史和現況、政府的功能和所提供的服務、香港的自然和人文特徵、以及現今本地的環境議題等。

單元六「能源科技與環境」

認識市區更新與環境可持續發展的關係,探討相關議題和挑戰。課程內容強調議題的探究、多重視角、獨立思考、專題研習等教學方式及重點,大部分活動可於校內進行,亦適用於其他學科,如歷史科和經濟科等。教師可按需要修改活動內容,務求更切合實際情況和個別學科的教學用途。

 

 
  適合作通識科獨立專題探究的材料。藉著「探究計劃書」、「資料搜集」、「習作」三個階段,從多角度探討市區更新工作的內容和相關議題,從而擴闊學生的視野和知識,訓練他們的分析和評鑑能力,並有助他們發展高階思考、溝通能力和在過程中付出努力,以及學習清晰地表達自己的想法和意念。
 

使用方法:

此部分有四個活動,並提供四個地區的市區更新項目資料,教師可因應學生和教學需要,選擇合適的活動。各個活動可個別進行,亦可互相配合使用,以應付高中課程內專題研習課程。教師可使用市建遊學園的項目資料,深化學生對市區更新的認知,從微觀(即特定地區、或從居民生活、商戶店舖的立場)理解何謂「市區更新」;然後透過資料搜集、實地考察、訪問活動等,對市區更新有更具體和宏觀的看法。


我們期望透過所提供的資料和訓練,可以讓學生靈活地從各持份者的角度去衡量、評估市區更新對香港持續發展的重要性;亦可以理解市區更新對香港社會各階層的影響,以鍛鍊獨立批評思考的能力,及認識到市建局的工作對香港整體社會的影響。以下活動適合就讀中一至中六課程的學生。







Over the decades, Hong Kong has different urban renewal strategies and plans to cater to the changing needs of the society.

In January 1988, the establishment of Land Development Corporation (LDC) under the relevant ordinance marked the beginning of a more focused and systematic approach to tackling urban decay problems in Hong Kong.  Through joint venture partnerships with private developers, the LDC completed 16 urban renewal projects and commenced another 10 projects.  It also announced 25 other projects. Some of the LDC's redevelopment projects,  including Jubilee Street / Queen's Road Central Project (The Center), Wing Lok Street / Queen's Road Central Project (Grand Millennium Plaza) and Argyle Street / Shanghai Street Project (Langham Place), brought new life to decaying districts and many benefits to the community, while laying a strong foundation for future urban renewal initiatives. By the end of the 1990s, the urgency of urban renewal was recognised by the community, which also supported new initiatives for an efficient, effective and sustainable urban renewal programme for Hong Kong. In 1997, the Chief Executive of HKSAR Government asserted the need to expedite urban renewal in his first Policy Address.

In June 2000, the Legislative Council passed the Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance. In March 2001, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council also endorsed the Government's compensation policy for land resumption, which provided the basis for the URA's compensation policy. Two months later, in May 2001, the URA was established to steer urban renewal in a new direction, one that was in accordance with guidelines set out in the Government's Urban Renewal Strategy (URS) of November 2001. The URA was required to give priority to the 25 projects previously announced by the LDC in 1988, but not yet commenced.

In view of the changing needs of the society, the Government launched an extensive two-year public engagement process on the URS in 2008, to summarise past experience as well as to explore new directions in urban renewal for the future. In February 2011, the Government announced the new URS which stipulates a “people first, district-based and public participatory” approach for urban renewal in Hong Kong.

The URA is tasked to adopt “Redevelopment” and “Rehabilitation” as its core businesses under the URS promulgated in 2011. The Authority should also preserve heritage buildings if such preservation forms parts of its urban renewal projects.

Under the URS, the URA will continue to embrace new challenges in tackling urban decay and endeavours to:
  • improve the living environment of those people residing in dilapidated buildings;
  • improve the cityscape of old districts with urban renewal initiatives;
  • provide flats that suit the need of the mass market;
  • preserve heritage buildings within project sites for maintaining integral parts of the city's history;
  • pursue environmentally sustainable development; and
  • achieve greater community engagement and ensure sensible use of public resources for a better future.

 



Redevelopment can replace dilapidated buildings with modern ones that meet present standards and requirements, especially with regard to environmental protection and energy efficiency. Through comprehensive planning, redevelopment also facilitates infrastructure improvement; traffic and environmental provisions; and the addition of much needed landscaped public open space, greening and community facilities, hence bringing benefits to the community.

The URA has implemented over 50 redevelopment projects, providing around 37,000 square metres of public open space and around 75,000 square metres for use of Government/institution/community facilities. For the sake of the community, certain portions of the commercial space of redeveloped sites are reserved for social enterprises; and leased to charitable and non-governmental organisations at nominal rents for social and educational purposes.

To tackle the problem of urban decay more effectively, the URA takes more diverse forms of redevelopment according to the URS promulgated in 2011 in order to respond to the property owners’ aspirations. Apart from initiating redevelopment projects on its own, the URA also adopts the “demand-led” approach and the “facilitator” role in order to take forward the redevelopment work through a three-pronged approach.

URA to initiate redevelopment projects on its own
"Demand-led" – Property owners band together and jointly propose to the URA to initiate redevelopment of their lot(s) / building(s)
"Facilitator" – Property owners band together and jointly apply for facilitation services of the URA for joint sale of their combined interests
 



The “demand-led” form allows property owners to initiate redevelopment projects, exemplifying the “bottom-up” approach and speeding up the pace of redevelopment. The URA may respond to a joint approach from property owners to initiate redevelopment of their lot(s) / building(s). After considering factors like the building conditions, planning gain and other factors, the URA as an “implementer” may commence a redevelopment project, if approved by the Financial Secretary, in accordance with the Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance using its statutory power and public money.

As of December 2013, the URA has commenced 8 demand-led redevelopment projects:







As a “facilitator”, the URA provides assistance to property owners to help them go through the process of joint sale in the market, without exercising its statutory power nor using the public money nor involving in any acquisition, compensation, rehousing and land resumption. The first successful joint sale by public auction for a project under the Facilitating Services (pilot scheme) is at 67 - 71 Lion Rock Road in Kowloon City (Details).



Building rehabilitation is an important segment of urban renewal. It not only offers speedy improvement to the living conditions of people in-situ and slows down the pace of urban decay, but also reduces the pressure for redevelopment and retains community network.  It also fulfils the Government’s policy for sustainable development. Since 2004, the URA has provided property owners with material subsidies and interest-free loans as well as other assistances, including hardship grants, Third Party Risks Insurance Subsidy and professional consultancy fees, aiming to motivate them to repair common areas of their buildings and to create a safe, hygienic and better environment. In fact, rehabilitation is an all-win solution. Property owners can enjoy better living environment and appreciation of the property value; in addition, the district environment can also be enhanced.

For optimisation of resources and more effective implementation, the comprehensive Integrated Building Maintenance Assistance Scheme (IBMAS) has been launched since 1 April 2011 and encompasses 4 major areas of assistance:
Owners' Corporation Formation Subsidy
Common Area Repair Works Subsidy
Common Area Repair Works Interest-free Loan
Home Renovation Interest-free Loan

The URA also provides one-stop service and assistance for property owners, including setting up a hotline service and resource centre, and providing advice on external wall colour designs and technical assistance. With effect from 1 July 2015, the URA integrates and enhances the Integrated Building Maintenance Assistance Scheme (IBMAS) to tie in with the extension of its service area to the whole of Hong Kong. The URA introduces the Green Item Subsidy (GIS) under the "Common Area Repair Works Subsidy" to encourage property owners to use environmentally-friendly building materials and install energy-saving facilities when carrying out building maintenance and repair works.



The URA has assisted property owners of over 500 buildings to complete building rehabilitation work. Building rehabilitation work includes the renovation of external and internal walls; piping for drainage; flushing and public water supply; rooftop waterproofing work; and the renewal of electrical and fire service installations.

In 2009, the Government launched a $3.5-billion "Operation Building Bright (OBB)". Apart from making $150 million contribution to the OBB as financial support, the URA has also offered technical assistance to the property owners of around 1,500 buildings within its schemes areas to carry out building repair and maintenance work.

In addition, to complement the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme implemented by the Buildings Department, the URA has launched the Mandatory Building Inspection Subsidy Scheme (MBISS) to provide financial assistance to eligible property owners for carrying out building inspection.

 
 





The URA preserves heritage buildings if such preservation forms part of its urban renewal projects. Its objective is to restore heritage buildings to their former glory through a pragmatic approach, while at the same time revitalise them for creative, cultural, entertainment and commercial purposes for the public to enjoy. The URA may also undertake preservation and revitalisation projects outside its redevelopment project boundaries if there is policy support from the Government.

The URA also undertakes revitalisation projects, and has implemented street beautification works in the vicinity of its redevelopment and rehabilitation projects to uplift the district environment.



    • The Art Community Project at Mallory Street in Wanchai was officially opened in July 2013, being Hong Kong's first ever “Comix Home Base”.

    • The design theme “Origin of Chinese Revolution” of the Pak Tsz Lane Garden is to highlight its connection with the 1911 Chinese Revolution.

    • Transformation of the former Central Market building into “Central Oasis”.

    • Dozens of historical buildings in the URA's redevelopment projects are preserved and revitalised, including two clusters of Cantonese verandah buildings on Prince Edward Road West and Shanghai Street.

    • After six years of planning and renovation work, the cluster of 4 shophouses and 1 pre-war building of the Johnston Road project have been converted into specialty restaurants, demonstrating harmonious co-existence of the old and the new.

    • The “Core Elements Preservation” approach is adopted to preserve key elements of the Wan Chai Market building in-situ in Wan Chai Road / Tai Yuen Street Project.

    • Preserving the local characteristics within or in the vicinity of the URA's redevelopment projects such as the century-old street market outside the Peel Street / Graham Street Development Scheme and “Sports Retail City” in the Sai Yee Street Project.

    • An open space near the Western Market has been beautified and turned into a multi-purpose public square named Sheung Wan Cultural Square as a new hub for community activities.

    • Various street beautification works implemented in the vicinity of the URA's redevelopment and rehabilitation projects in Tai Kok Tsui, Tsuen Wan and Tsim Sha Tsui.

     





Complementing the General Studies of Primary Schools, UR Activities emphasise issues investigation, the importance of adopting multiple perspectives and independent thinking. Most of the sample activities can be conducted inside the campus. Teachers may also adjust the activities according to the actual situations and teaching needs of specific subjects.


 
This e-portal provides three activities.

 

Some reminders:


  Encourage a spirit of enquiry, using well-timed input that
enriches discussion but does not dictate its direction.
  Create a relaxed and accommodating atmosphere that
encourages open-mindedness, objectivity and respect for
the views of others.
  Help students understand the background and values of different parties. Guide them to
recognise “subjective” viewpoints, and also to critically evaluate and interpret “objective” information.
  Help students realise that the issues covered by the e-portal involve
different stakeholders, and some of them may be controversial.
 
 
 

 

Complementing the Integrated Humanities/Life and Society Curriculum, Geography and Liberal Studies of senior secondary levels, UR Activities help students to learn about urban decay problems and urban renewal work in Hong Kong, to understand the role of the URA and to explore the impact of urban renewal on Hong Kong's social, economic, cultural and environmental development.

The activities are particularly suitable for the following subjects:

 
 

Strand 1: Personal and Social Development

By exploring the process and the controversies that may arise from urban renewal projects, students will learn about different groups and communities, and consider how to achieve a balance between urban development and cultural heritages preservation. In addition, by looking closely at preservation projects of the URA, students will be taught to appreciate their local cultural heritages.

 

Strand 5: Resources and Economic Activities

Learning about the projects undertaken by the URA will help students better understand the Hong Kong economy, as well as the economic structures of different communities. They will also know how redevelopment and rehabilitation help maintain and even boost Hong Kong’s competitiveness. By adopting both macro-and micro-perspectives in learning, students will gain the ability to comment meaningfully on social views and government policies in relation to such issues as urban renewal, economic development, preservation and revitalisation, and people's livelihood.

 
 

In exploring different urban renewal projects, students will learn how to interpret information by looking closely at and analysing maps, diagrams and related data, as well as how to come up with feasible proposal. The activities will also give students an understanding of the relevant areas, their form and layout, and the ways in which human activities influence the natural and social environment. They will also get to know the past history and present state of different districts, and learn to plan for the future. This e-portal “UR Web Academy” helps students explore the problems and limitations of the environment, and think how to build a sustainable city and to respect different cultures, values and lifestyles.

 
 

Module 2: “Hong Kong Today”

By looking at urban decay in Hong Kong and some of the city’s urban renewal work, students will be introduced to some of the methods by which the living environments of Hong Kong residents have been improved. They will also have the opportunity to discuss the needs and problems facing Hong Kong society, the historical development of Hong Kong’s economy, the functions of government and the kinds of services it provides, the physical and human characteristics of the Hong Kong environment, and some of the environmental issues currently facing Hong Kong.


Module 6: “Energy Technology and the Environment”

Students will learn about the relationship between urban renewal and sustainable development, and discuss some of the issues and challenges arising in these areas.
The e-portal covers a wide range of issues, placing particular emphasis on the importance of adopting multiple perspectives and engaging in independent thinking. Most of the suggested activities can be conducted on the school campus. It can also be used for other subjects, such as History and Economics, with the activities easily adaptable to the practical requirements and teaching needs of specific subjects.

 

 
 

The materials in this e-portal can also be used for the IES module of Liberal Studies. Through the three stages of “Project Proposal”, “Data Collection”, and “Product”, students will explore the issues of urban renewal from multiple perspectives, in a process that will widen their horizons and expand their knowledge, sharpen their critical and analytical skills, and help them improve their high-order thinking and communication skills.

 

How to use:

This e-portal provides four activities, along with information of urban renewal projects from four different districts. Teachers can match any of the activities with any of the projects, to meet their specific teaching goals. The activities in this e-portal can be used individually or in combination, which can be particularly useful for the IES module.

The up-to-date information of the URA projects will enhance students’ knowledge of urban renewal. By adopting a micro-perspective (e.g. by taking the perspective of a local resident or a shop owner), they will understand more of urban renewal, that can be followed by a more concrete and macro-perspective learning through data collection, site observation, and interviews.

We hope that the information and guidance provided in the e-portal will allow students to evaluate the importance of urban renewal for the sustainability of Hong Kong from the perspective of all stakeholders. They will also understand the effects of urban renewal on different social groups in Hong Kong. All this will develop their skills of independent thinking, and give them insight into how the work of the URA benefits the overall development of Hong Kong.




 
Chinese version only