UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Low-income public housing in Hong Kong and Singapore 1950-1980 : a comparative analysis Shen, Qing 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1986_A8 S53.pdf [ 6.63MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0097173.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097173-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097173-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097173-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097173-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097173-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097173-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

LOW-INCOME P U B L I C HONG KONG AND A  HOUSING  SINGAPORE  IN  1950 - 1 9 8 0 :  COMPARATIVE A N A L Y S I S  by  QING B.S.,  A  Zhejiang  THESIS THE  SHEN  University  ( P . R.  SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL REQUIREMENTS  FOR  MASTER  OF  China),  1982  F U L F I L M E N T OF  THE DEGREE  OF  ARTS  in THE School  We  F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE  o f Community  accept to  THE  this  and R e g i o n a l  thesis  the required  UNIVERSITY  OF  October ©  Qing  STUDIES  as  Planning  conforming  standard  BRITISH  COLUMBIA  1986  Shen,  1986  9  5  In p r e s e n t i n g requirements  this thesis f o r an  of  British  it  freely available  Columbia,  by  understood that for  Library  s h a l l make  for reference  and  study.  I  f o r extensive copying of be  her  g r a n t e d by  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n shall  not  The  be  University  Vancouver,  V6T  1Y3  Date  DE-6  n/R-n  of  Canada  British  of  further this  Columbia  thesis  head o f  this  my  It is thesis  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  of  1956 Main Mall  the  representatives.  permission.  Department  University  the  h i s or  f i n a n c i a l gain  the  the  I agree that  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  department or  f u l f i l m e n t of  advanced degree a t  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n for  in partial  written  i i  ABSTRACT  This in  the  thesis process  countries policy  and  and  study  through of  housing  To  nature  are  housing  as  shortage  that  housing  of  of  activity;  plays  housing  determining  a  Three  basic  conducted  development  human  role  these  the  the  of  a  of  the  major of  housing  process  of  Government  therefore  socio-economic  is  socio-economic  countries. are  i t  problem  nature  in  and  need; ( i i )  as  the the  Kong  aspects  While  in  planning  the  the  ( i i i ) housing  dynamic of  is  housing,  countries,  development  and  countries.  low-income  rooted  a  in these  of  housing  socio-economic  i n Hong  environment.  deeply  developing  programs  as  and  the  housing,  housing.  housing  developing  and  urban  nature  to  analysis  of  housing  government  housing  public  role  low-income  which  contribute  1980.  (i)  urban  development  low-income  physical  housing  policy in  can  and  the  is  of  socio-economic  factors  the  economic  circumstances  housing  1950  the  of  in  comparative  defined:  of  ways  public  explore  an  component  suggests  and  understand to  the  low-income  low-income  essential  housing  on  between  role  socio-economic  urban  critical  Singapore  the  planning  of  focuses  a  the  of  examines  effectiveness The  discusses  critical  effectiveness  of  housing.  The analysis and  important of  Singapore  economic  the  questions  low-income  are:  ( i ) What  circumstances  for  that  public were their  guide  housing the  this programs  political,  respective  comparative i n Hong  Kong  social,  and  public  housing  programs?  ( i i ) How  finance,  and  particular, (iii) for  How  subsidize  low-income  economic  assumptions role  states;  that  determinants housing  social were  of  were  of  that  One shared  critical  and  additional  which  and  that  housing  circumstances.  of  the  each  It  economic  by  policy  was  the  of  to  achieve of  socio-  played  the  goals  developing  Singapore.  goals  the  housing  resources  and  and  two  major public  low-income  economy  low-income large  were  for  a  urban-  for  Planning  i s that  and  the  and  design  public  housing  scale,  Hong  differences for  the  study  of  public  study,  housing i t  should  based  i s important  on to  Kong in  low  is  and  the  low-income  purpose  country  planning  social  their  f o r low-income of  the  in  principles  emphasize  the  of  units?  programs?  that  reflected  Whilst  purpose  the  in  rents,  accessibility.  planning.  a  the  programs,  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e measures  backgrounds  were  are  organize,  housing  ( i v ) What  development  attributes  similarities  both  public  housing  analysis  assumption  economic  housing  c o n t r i b u t e to  public  and  Kong  quality  and  is  the  that  the  social, of  and  have  both  of  Singapore  public  housing?  achievement  Hong  therefore  reasonable  design  socio-economic  the  and  distribute  constrained  system  programs  and  financial  programs;  housing  and  f o r the  i n the  Kong  low-income  public  effectiveness  The  Hong  administer  did planning  the  dynamic  did  political,  public  housing i s to  Singapore  housing,  policy  explore  and  general  in developing countries also  the  determine its  i t s housing  own  n o t i c e that  intention  to  policy  socio-economic these  differences  iv  are  reflected  Hong  i n the  Kong  and  standards  they  Hong  Kong  and  in  the  countries housing and  experience. largest centre case.  Singapore,  and  in  Singapore world  and  with As  planning  and  particular  design the  measures  different  in  design  adopted.  policies  cities  different  an  in China,  which  programs.  It  comparable  effort  most  are  towards  densely  is analyzed  two have is  of  achieved  few  such  populated  developing  success  important  conditions  i n the  the  that  learn  in  countries from  learning,  Shanghai,  industrial  and  last  chapter  as  a  public  their the  commercial comparable  V  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  List  of Tables  List  of Figures  viii  Acknowledgement  ix  CHAPTER 1.1  v i i  1. I N T R O D U C T I O N  1  The Housing Problem i n t h e C i t i e s of D e v e l o p i n g C o u n t r i e s  1  1.2 H o u s i n g , H o u s i n g P o l i c y a n d P l a n n i n g i n the P r o c e s s o f Socio-Economic Development in Developing Countries 1.3  Purpose  CHAPTER  and Scope  6  of the Study  2. T H E I N I T I A T I O N OF P U B L I C I N HONG AND S I N G A P O R E  HOUSING 14  2.1  Historic  2.2  The Socio-Economic S i t u a t i o n a n d Housing Problem P r i o r t o t h e I n i t i a t i o n of Large S c a l e P u b l i c Housing Programs  22  The I n i t i a t i o n Public Housing  31  2.3  2.4  and Geographic  10  Background  15  o f Low-Income Programs  The S o c i o - E c o n o m i c D y n a m i c s o f t h e Low-Income P u b l i c H o u s i n g P r o g r a m s i n Hong Kong a n d S i n g a p o r e  CHAPTER  3. A D M I N I S T R A T I O N AND F I N A N C E OF P U B L I C IN  HOUSING  HONG KONG AND S I N G A P O R E  3.1  The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  3.2  Finance  3.3  The D i s t r i b u t i o n  of Public  Organization  ....35  44 f o rPublic  Housing  ....44  Housing  Programs  57  of Public  Housing  62  vi  CHAPTER  4. P L A N N I N G PUBLIC  AND D E S I G N  HOUSING  OF T H E LOW-INCOME  I N HONG  KONG AND S I N G A P O R E  4.1  The F u n c t i o n o f PLanning  4.2  S q u a t t e r C l e a r a n c e and Complementary Low-Income  4.3  High-Rise  4.4  Low D e s i g n  4.5  Spatial  CHAPTER  5.1  Housing  Standards  Expansion  66  Programs  and High-Density P u b l i c f o rPublic  of Public  68 Housing  75  Housing  Housing  81  Programs  of P u b l i c  the Provision  Housing  of Housing  5.3  The Impact o f t h e Low-Income P u b l i c H o u s i n g the P h y s i c a l C o n d i t i o n of the Residents The L o c a t i o n o f P u b l i c Housing E s t a t e s  of Public  Housing  Units  104  on 109 115  An A s s e s s m e n t o f t h e S o c i a l E f f e c t o f t h e Low-Income P u b l i c H o u s i n g P r o g r a m s i n H o n g K o n g a n d S i n g a p o r e ...120  CHAPTER 6.1  and A f f o r d a b i l i t y  100  Rent  5.5  98  Programs  5.2  5.4  89  5. T H E S O C I O - E C O N O M I C E F F E C T I V E N E S S OF T H E LOW-INCOME P U B L I C H O U S I N G PROGRAMS I N HONG KONG AND S I N G A P O R E  The Impact on  Public  and Design  66  6. L E S S O N S  Shanghai  FOR COMPARABLE  as a Comparable  CONDITIONS  City  6.2 P e r s p e c t i v e s o n t h e P o l i c y a n d P l a n n i n g for P u b l i c Housing i n Shanghai  BIBLIOGRAPHY  124 124  130  137  vii  LIST  OF  TABLES  Table  3.1  Public  Housing  Investment  i n Hong  Table  3.2  Public  Housing  Investment  i n Singapore  Table  4.1  Features  Table  4.2  Comparative F l a t Design Hong Kong a n d S i n g a p o r e  Table  4.3  of Resettlement  Comparative Hong  Kong  Table  4.4  New  Towns  Table  5.1  Squatter  Table  5.2  Public  Block  Design  61 62  i n Hong  Kong  79  Standards: 88 Standards  for Flats:  and Singapore  88  i n Singapore  94  Population  Housing  Clearance  Estates  Kong  i n Hong  Kong  C o n s t r u c t i o n and  102 Squatter  i n Singapore  Rents  of Public  104  Table  5.3  Typical  Table  5.4  Income  Table  5.5  Table  5.6  Number o f H o u s e h o l d s P e r L i v i n g Q u a r t e r by T y p e i n Hong Kong (1971) Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of the Comparison of the R e s i d e n t i a l C o n d i t i o n s i n P u b l i c Housing Estates with Past R e s i d e n t i a l Conditions  and Rental  Housing  i n Six Asian  i n Hong  Kong  Countries,  1973  106 ...107  112  114  viii  LIST  2.1  The  Figure  2.2  Hong  Kong  17  Figure  2.3  Singapore  20  Figure  4.1  The L o c a t i o n  of Squatter Areas  Figure  4.2  Resettlement  Blocks for  Shek  o f Hong  FIGURES  Figure  the  Setting  OF  Kong  K i p Mei F i r e  and Singapore  16  i n Hong  Kong  Victims  70  78  Figure  4.3  Resettlement  Housing  i n Hong  Kong: Mark  I  83  Figure  4.4  Resettlement  Housing  i n Hong  Kong: Mark  II  83  Figure  4.5  Resettlement  Housing  i n Hong  Kong: Mark  III  84  Figure  4.6  Resettlement  Housing  i n Hong  Kong: Mark  IV  84  Figure  4.7  Types  Figure  4.8  New  Towns  i n Hong  Figure  4.9  New  Towns  i n Singapore  Figure  5.1  Location  of Public  Housing  of Public  i n Singapore  Kong  Housing  87 •.  92 93  i n Hong  Kong  117  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I  wish  to  extend  Professor  Brahm Wiesman  guidance  and  Professor  Wiesman  and  i n h e l p i n g me  I  ideas  also  wish  special  sister  i n China  Finally, People's UBC.  word  my  Republic  I  am  accomplish  my  of  thanks moral  my  supervisors,  Oberlander  particularly contributed study  P r o f e s s o r T e r r y McGee  fortheir of  to  and Professor Peter  who h a s g e n e r o u s l y  t o thank  two y e a r s  appreciation  encouragement.  A  past  my  i s also  a t UBC  for their  indebted so  much  to time  successfully.  forh i s advice.  d u e t o my  and s p i r i t u a l  support  parents and during the  study.  special  gratitude  of China  goes  t o t h e government  f o r s p o n s o r i n g my  graduate  of the  studies at  1  CHAPTER  1.1  Housing  Problems  Housing  1.  INTRODUCTION  i n the C i t i e s  problems  of Developing  are universal.  are  most  as  i n the developing c o u n t r i e s of A f r i c a  problem  as  of the shortage  provision  of housing  policy-making severity the  countries, problem.  I n many can  the  afford  squatter  in  cities, housing  areas  only  a  place  by  of  The the  f o r government  to place,  housing  proportion  the private of  t o choose  their  with  developing  the worst  proportion  part  and Canada  and A s i a .  in  small  have  the  Nevertheless, the  have  a  built  the poor,  as  area  cities  a high  particular  and slum  the  big cities,  and, as a consequence,  population,  from  in  and t h e r e f o r e ,  country.  varies  that  of these  persists,  every  problem  especially  a s t h e USA  as a c h a l l e n g i n g  virtually  observation  1  households  of housing  stands  of the housing  general  sector  in  c o u n t r i e s such  evident  industrially well  developed  They  Countries  of  housing  the  urban  to live  strategies  in for  survival.  Such  an  observation  suggests  related  t o a number  of  related  t o economic  capability,  population mobilizing  'In this countries countries  growth  and  and u t i l i s i n g  that  socio-economic  the  the housing  factors.  problem  First,  r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e match  development  of  resources. Secondly,  human i t is  i t  is i s  between  ability related  in to  study, the concept "developing c o u n t r i e s " i n d i c a t e the which a r e n e i t h e r industrially developed capitalist nor developed s o c i a l i s t countries.  2  the  pattern  pattern it  of  of  the  is related  The  to  of  such  a  by  the  disparity  in  pattern  of  mobilized  in  these  the  of  the  population relatively countries  only  mis-match  i s one  countries,  and  the  has  including negative resources  the  need  consequences have  not  income  cities. its  human of  the  countries and  and The  is  resources, wealth,  and  urbanization  problems,  and  the  for  has  of had  the  the  represents  Bank  housing.  GNP  such  countries needs  a  mis-match  a  significant  these  capita.  between high  This  labour  rate  circumstances, to  of  find the  between impact  in  per  Interestingly  the  but  1978).  poverty  mis-match  Under  is  population  low  on  of  developing  Atlas,  in  rate  economy  that  general by  the  the  total  resulted  these  of  show  terms  various  for  progress  (World  unemployment. for  countries,  world's  caused  demand,  satisfy  the  i t s GNP  also  possible  to  of  1978  i n economic  is  resources  of  the in  reasons  and  not  population  in  a l l  whilst  of  underemployment virtually  of  pattern  developing  developing  69.8%  16.5%  labour  spatial  between  Statistics  represented  mis-match  Thirdly,  organization  i n most  with  of  i s high  of  the  resources.  social  reality.  constitued  generated  the  population  majority  slow.  i n d i c a t e s the  mobilized  distribution  countries,  growth  which  resources.  reality  mis-match  socio-economic  In  supply  the  represents  these  concentration  process  of  socio-economic  enormous  The  the  which  characterized  the  distribution,  distribution  settlements, distribution  income  of i t  sufficient population,  enough,  the  population  and  the  pattern  of  3  population  growth.  low  of  rates  rates  of  Developed  population  population  persist  in  most  including  China,  Pakistan,  Bangladesh  countries  in  disparity  currently the  a  income  problem.  in  among  and  percent,  the  generally whilst  percent  Only of  a  or  few  growth,  fastest  world's  more,  Yugoslavia.  the  poorest  high  developing  population  Lebanon,  an  example,  reason  the  national  7%  (World  has  living  in  top  limitation  distribution  However,  wealth  population  the  the  countries,  the  While  growing  (World  Bank  the  income Bank,  in  the  a  of  in a  "absolute  income  the  much  population  while  the  bottom  1984).  It  is therefore  poor's  economic  distribution  situation  receive  in  poverty  in  of  typically  hard  the  proportion  (Linn,  not  of  of  1983,  countries  fifth  is  distribution  higher  developing  wealth  existence  the  poverty"  the  of  general  in  of  and  pattern  universal  disparity  capitalist  quintile  the  because  resulted in  Such  for  the  of  in  p4).  Southeast  enjoy only to  As  50%  of  about  5-  imagine  relation  to  the  their  needs.  The  current  words  capitalist this  rates  u n i v e r s a l phenomenon.  developing  other  low  Afganistan,  are  underlying  housing  basic  three  their  1985).  The  Asia,  to  Ethiopia,  and  Asia,  one  countries.  relatively Cuba,  continue  around  two  developing  have  is  growth,  growth,  countries  Atlas  countries  spatial  investment, economies.  spatial  pattern  pattern is  a  of  the  built  consequence  Conventional of  the  environment, of  the  economists  distribution  of  may  or  system argue  resources  in of  that is  4  economically negative  efficient,  consequences.  concentration relationship to  of between  process  Urbanization  has  that  resulted  population  and  man  environment  and  urbanization that  poverty. places  hand,  results  On  the  where  education,  his  the  an  i t has i n an  extremely that  regarding  the  population,  the  the  provisions  the  housing  the  of  national Spatial are  in  various increased  complicated is  difficult  in  in  of  the  these  of  disparity  centrally for  of  a  result,  cities  in  located them  to  land  . the  and  even  developing  from  the  spatial  is  disparity  also  groups  and  prices i s so  satisfy  at  their  by  their income,  by  the  labour  and  resource in  Therefore,  countries  is  in  the  not  the  spatial only  urban  at  level.  income  opportunities  areas.  This  related  high  other  concentration  significant  but  the  shortages  food.  the  The  best  human face  the  the  or  surplus  a  and  are  employment,  cities  metropolitan land  either  of  wealth  social  for  On  activities  housing,  levels  in  amenities.  number  countries.  phenomena  possible  As  countries  driven  is  wealth  receive  in absorbing in  resulting  regional  the  social  countries both  these  opportunities  area  of  fortunes,  migrants,  employment,  distribution and  best  surpasses  concentration  results  not  rural  problem  typical  price  of  their  in  socio-economic  cities.  problem  poverty  pattern  the  always  by  the  other  developing  cities  make  of  in  concentrations  hand,  influx  of  of  one  large  limitation  of  the  enjoy  and  part  in  and  education,  required  process  some p e o p l e  perceptions  is  i t i s undeniable  plan.  The  a  but  that basic  to  in  turn  location.  the  poor  housing  find  The it  needs  5  including  access,  dilemma.  As  problem,  a  tenure,  consequence,  include  land  overcrowding,  lack  opportunities,  and  The for  the  above  the  solutions.  As  economic  cities  the  combined  moblized  that  the  basic to  trends  estimated  (Linn, the  i n the  in  of  and  to  the  close  1983).  This  should  the  the  rooted  approach in  socioin  countries eventually requires  that  between i n the  have  reduced  to  households  be can  goal  and  The  is  growth  and  i n the  in  the  the  extent to  of  the  What  the  socio-economic  in  the  the  p e r s i s t e n c e of  level  urbanization,  between  is  countries  will  1975  in developing  developing  of  i t  foreseeable future,  shortage  and  magnitude  i n the  with  and  sufficient  in developing  people  to  obvious.  improvement Moreover,  social  earn  housing.  a  governments  population  disparity  1 billion  housing  countries,  should  housing  basis  problem  communities  will,  prices.  socio-economic  the  mis-match  country.  to  to  housing  employment  developing  i n v o l v e s reforms  society  urban  of  solution  housing  i s deeply  a  subdivision, to  government  problem  such  do  of  the  including  achieve  access  the  creating  urban  illegal  poor  cities  the  urban  needs,  absorb  What  the  population  that  severity  the  the  and  l a n d and  i n which  shelter,  of  revealed  distribution  the of  has  developing  needs  productivity  to  the  poorest  of  rising  housing  effect  needed  structure  have  the  p a t t e r n of  government  the  problem direction  of  their  effort  rapidly  resources,  even  meet  services,  circumstances,  the  spatial  of  and  symptoms  invasion  discussion  housing  indicating  services,  and  2000  aggravate  countries.  countries  do,  6  about  the  economic to  make  currently  resources, progress  1.2 H o u s i n g , of  situation  vary  attitudes  difference  such  process  the  reality  1  the  problem  i n the Process Countries  improve  the  to country.  ranges  from  Needless  political  housing  Government  to  say,  countries  suggest  c o n d i t i o n e d by t h e p r i o r i t y Countries  adopt  on t h e b a s i s o f d i f f e r e n t development,  relationship  between  which  the  and economic  between  situation  1  indifference  systems  the difference  economic  structure,  that  given to different  t h e o r i e s of the present  housing  diverse  and  the  process.  seems  a common  has a c l o s e and  country  strategies.  socio-economic  development  problem  and  also  strategies  of on  It  are  i n Developing  to  limited  situation?  Planning  housing.  different  i n development  development  views  of public  political  difference  housing  from  A t t h e same t i m e ,  a similar  housing  governments  the housing  reflect  capabilities.  Development  by  socio-economic  and Housing  significantly  provision  of p o p u l a t i o n growth,  an improved  Policy  made  towards  direct  with  towards  Housing  efforts  rate  and the e x i s t i n g  Socio-Economic  The  to  high  belief  association  therefore  among a c a d e m i c s with  improvement  that  a country's in  the  the housing  socio-economic  housing  situation  This discussion i s b a s e d on two r e f e r e n c e s : ( i ) U r b a n i s a t i o n , Housing, and the Development Process (Drakakis-Smith^ 1981); and ( i i ) " N a t i o n a l and R e g i o n a l Development S t r a t e g i e s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r H o u s i n g P o l i c i e s " (Wu, 1 9 7 9 ) .  7  actually  means  Nevertheless, housing Early  there  statements  tended  f o r t h e urban  improving in  overall  itself  rather  poverty.  decision-makers their  political hand  they  housing  so  with hand, of  than  a  means  view  that  housing to  has  opposite  had  because  they they  they  also  housing  their  have  to and  On  t o reduce  income  d i s e a s e and  the impatience of  urban  results  one  low-cost  for  the r e l a t i v e l y  construction  on  tended  acceptance.  potential  moderate  that  end of  influence  f u n c t i o n s of  inequalities  argue  a s an  quasi-economic  a r e thought  the p e r s i s t e n t  broader  protagonists  their  may  the  that  ways o f  housing  little  incorporate  of  position  i s taken  redistribution  other shortage  invest  i n areas  than  which  offer  improvements  in  o n e o f many  Developing  i s that  b y some  c a n be m o r e  investment  i s just  growth.  assumption about  because  effective  viewing  to  stance  of the  life;  high in  on  labour-  increased  opportunities.  urban  bring  conditions,  This  and because  rapid  The  living  of  development.  humanist  one o f t h e most  on t h e s o c i a l  income  housing  was  the simple  emphasis  employment  methods  t o adopt  on t h e r o l e  socio-economic  put great  intensity  that  of  development.  agreement  t o enhance  poor  An  been  i n order  programs  other  socio-economic  reasons  delinquency,  the  process  arguments  redistribution,  urban  in never  poor  their  eradicating  expand  has  i n the h i s t o r i c  housing  end  progress  economists,  efficiently low-cost  problems  who  achieved  housing, which  argue  and  by that  result  c o u n t r i e s are t h e r e f o r e urged  more  tangible  or immediate  general  economic  growth  i n other  fields,  such  will as  from to  returns. eventually  housing.  In  8  their  arguments  economic The  activity  development  which  a r e what  adopted the  by  Second  evidence a  housing  calls  many World  War  (Wu,  (Wu,  show  sacrificing  that  sectors  will  Many their of  1979).  result  development  development  housing  investment, The  point  be b a s e d  to  made  after  is  little in  On  greater  the  income  evidence  favour  of  to  other  growth.  t h e need new  to  modify  interpretation  context.  firmer  and housing here  on a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g  a  were  has r e s u l t e d  of economic  that  policy  be  in  of the  thought,  society.  socio-economic  means  housing  there  growth  to realize  because  a broader this  rate  of  i s no s o l i d  development  resources.  countries  towards  there  begun  strategies  i s concerned,  should  housing  have  in  is  sector of  strategies",  throughout  date  i n a higher  housing  sought.  to  school  growth  on e c o n o m i c  In a d d i t i o n ,  countries  this  Nevertheless,  benifits  tendency  generates  of the developing  1979).  focus  of  disparity  on  than  "macro-economic  a narrow  the  a s an u n p r o d u c t i v e  rather  based  governments  permeation  contrary,  seen  absorbs  strategies Wu  that  broad  which  i s  As  f a r as  rational  for  planning  i s being  t h e new  rational  i s that  of the fundamental  nature  of  housing.  There nature suggests  of  housing.  three  First,  aspects  housing  i t ss e r i o u s socio-economic  importance Therefore, basic  are essentially  of  housing  rather  component  than  to a  every  result  constituting  of  which  i s a basic  constitute human  consequences individual  because and  development, the  need,  historic  of  the which the  the family.  housing process  is  a of  9  development. makes  every  It is possible  Secondly, housing labour,  on  in  one hand  t h e same  way  housing  makes  through  job  country's  economic  that  third  a major  through  improving  environment  To  this  housing resources  should  resources. the  poor  also  T h i s means  should  which  and  stimulation i s  of housing  a  is  that  housing  environment.  This  suggests  socio-economic between  man  development  and h i s p h y s i c a l  on t h e u s e o f u r b a n  and  benefits  Government an  housing  adequate  housing  efficient  the provision  policy  and of  t o t h e dynamic needed f o r  capacity  policy use  housing  allocation  play  economic  land.  of  the resources  policy  to  i ni t .  because  be t h e c e n t r a l  (i)  related  subject  However,  that  society  of  full  an  and  development  to give  ensure  that  generates  of a  sector  government  means  implications:  provision  a r e c o n s t r a i n e d by t h e l i m i t e d country,  needs.  as land, c a p i t a l  two  and  necessity  ensure  government  socio-economic  to  presented.  should  of housing.  developing planning  to  economizing  to the housing  functions  has  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  the  such  f o r investment  contribute  been  planning  activity,  of the p h y s i c a l  point, has  etc.This  profits,  and through  development  housing  can  housing  of the c a p i t a l  of the nature  component  housing  part  ( i i ) housing  aspect  the  c r e a t e s employment  forms  capability  that  basic  resources,  contribution  creation,  sectors;  t o meet  hand,  as t o o l s ,  economic  is  needs  housing  a  imperative  i s an economic  the other  In f a c t  The  effort  housing  a n d on  profits.  therefore  of  of low-cost  orientation.  of  a  and  housing  the  limited  housing f o r  10  The  definition  location. income be  "low-income  Nevertheless,  groups  able  of  to  satisfy  what  are  As  f a r as  housing  those  who  cannot  satify  p r o p o r t i o n of  cases, on  they  rents,  provide  It  approaches  adjust  of  and  This  study  government  not  basic  earn  and  to  low-  enough  to  requirements  for  low-income  households  needs  by  housing  market.  20  percent  of  their  the  In  a  most  their  income  housing  needs  government  should  basic  that  are  spending  the  people  Scope  housing  at  the  countries.  of  the  i s intended housing and  policy  income  public  The  housing,  a l l  and  study and  levels  Results  successful  learning  are  and  show  importance  through  effectiveness  these  developing countries  equally  countries,  socio-economic  have  planning.  suggests  low-income  developing  by  seen  approaches  Purpose  urban  taken  and  which  their  than  to  c o u n t r i e s are  conditions,  more  these  are  policy  developing  on  spend  to  do  housing  income  time  housing.  differences  housing  1.3  is  i . e . they  basic  to  f e a t u r e common  c o n s i d e r e d as  their  want  is related  one  i s concerned,  their  to  they  low-cost  The The  have  if  satisfied.  is  in a l l countries,  life.  normal  there  group"  a l l aspects  that  in  not  improving  for these from  diverse.  each  of  a l l  housing  countries to other.  Study  to  d i s c u s s the  in  the  to  examine  housing of  development the  ways  on  i s conducted  low-income one  in  a  of  which to  the  housing  in  approach,  through  role  process  planning contribute  urban  focuses  socio-economic  i.e.  critical  lowand  11  comparative housing  programs  Hong  Kong  countries scale  analysis  in  as  and  the  It  learn  Hong  from  development  Kong  and  Singapore  world  examples  programs.  the  i n Hong  low-income  cited  of  which  public of  Kong  are  have  two  public  likely  that  Singapore  design,  Contributing  to  such  Low-income  public  characteristics.  initiative,  housing  to  is  a  social  housing its  the  usually  consequence, substantial  1  Hong Kong countries 1983.  2  Notes  and  has  designated  geared  residents  rents  i t is a  initiative,  is  are  can  the the  not  low-income deficits,  the  for  which  the  policies  and  countries  can  housing this  has  of  the  three  essential  rather  than  the of  because i t  government  public  Thirdly, income  As  results  subsidies.  as  from  building.  usually  a  adequate  low-income  residents.  costs  programs.  study.  Secondly,  group,  the  policy  providing  the  housing  requires  frequently  socio-economic  initiative  group.  of  large-  the  the  of  objective  low-income  public  and  social  income  cover  comparable  definition  rent  of  are  housing  goal  low-income the  to  from  by  They  1  public  i s the  housing  First,  market  low-income  learning  developing  and  planning their  few  nature  orientation,  of  the  understanding  the  effectiveness  public  through  background, and  low-income  policies  programs.  socio-economic the  of  pursued  successful  and  the  Singapore.  housing  is therefore  of  2  a in  What  and Singapore are u s u a l l y i n c l u d e d i n the group of l a b e l l e d "developing". See McGee, 1971, and Linn,  taken  in Professor  Oberlander's  lecture,  1986.  12  were  the  that  socio-economic  led  to  the  housing  programs?  housing  programs  the  governments  orientation major the  housing this  What  has  this  orientation  Kong  and  public  programs?  public of  evolved?  How  have  designated direct  housing?  their  the  What  the  social  were  the  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a c h i e v i n g the goal  How  have  planning  and  been  These  the  are  of  design  the  low-income  socio-economic  the q u e s t i o n s  played  effects  which  guide  of an  public of  the  the  effort  study.  essential  indicate  that  Hong  approaching However,  features  Kong  identifying  and  the  i t should  be  public  the  housing  is  realized  that  emphasized as  a  Kong  and  and  developing  countries.  Therefore,  to  intention  in housing  that  want  this  study  policy  the to  of  and from  some  may  i s not  importance the  as  to  countries.  It  "high  of  the  than  to  Singapore.  flexibility, major  income most  importance  is critical and  intended  approach  are d i f f e r e n t  Kong  in  generalized.  developing  planning  identify  principle  feasible  understanding  housing  similarities.  be  study  Singapore  Hong  public  basic  this  "urban-states"  to learn  understand of  that  i n i n the c i t i e s Hong  some  universally  countries"  countries  share  housing  developing  flexibility  low-income  Singapore  public  housing  problem  of  similarity,  low-income  advocate  effort  Singapore  orientations  to  i n a c h i e v i n g the goals have  and  low-income  Singapore  systems  low-income  programs?  their  social  finance  and  of  Kong  the  how  Hong  the  role  The  to  and  i n Hong  initiation  were  and  of  housing  housing?  By  What  constraints  important  of  to the  in  administration  circumstances  of  those In  an  i t i s an  differences  in  13  housing  policy  Singapore to  and  these  and  to  housing  d i s c u s s the  differences,  planning  between  socio-economic  and  the  relative  Hong  Kong  background  and  leading  effectiveness  of  their  programs.  The learned  last by  part  lessons  for  low-income  low-income on  the  public  on  developing  and  is  can  housing  previous  data  i n Hong  problem  countries are  ideas  this  study.  Kong  by  a  Kong  policy and  from  Singapore  faculty  be of  planning  Singapore.  and  references  UBC  and  various  and  can  discussion  by  Works  policy  what  brief  collected  in China.  valuable  comments  the  studies  u r b a n i z a t i o n , housing  critical  summarise  from  i n Hong  on  housing  housing  will  learn  based  from  addition, for  study,  countries including  China  public  urban  scholars  which  study  publications  this  comparable  the  The  of  by  government authors as  a  housing  on  well  as  number  of  planning  in  for this  study.  contributed  In  many  1 4  CHAPTER  2. T H E I N I T I A T I O N IN  This public It  chapter  housing  analyses  program  the  attitudes  in  respective  Hong  Kong  The Before  basis the  then,  provision  the  initial  housing  Improvement  Trust,  of building  1927,  long  before  population  construction housing  taken  of of  sector  as the year  policy  HDB,  government  large  scale  public  i n Singapore. in  which public  Kong  to  i n Singapore  in  adequate  the  housing  In t h i s  Singapore  define because  existence  since  Development  goal  f o r the  before  beginning programs  study  1954.  organization in  housing  elusive  marked  in  assistance in  of the Housing  an  which  questions  o f Hong  only  in  easy  a government had been  housing  began  I t i s not  Nevertheless, was  f o r low-income  Important  housing,  their  socio-economic  of government  the establishment  (HDB) i n 1 9 6 0 .  establishment  the  public  solving  of the discussion.  Kong  program  which  governmental  public  theme  Hong  housing.  f o rpublic  charge  whole  in  factors  of the  low-income  low-income  and Singapore.  towards  The a n a l y s i s  was n o t r a d i t i o n  o f low-income  Kong  positive  city-states  program  scale  and economic  i s the central  housing  date  i n Hong  initiating  developing  there  Singapore  Board  two  and Singapore  public  SINGAPORE  social  for  problems.  of  the  the  was i n i t i a t e d  political,  housing  significance  KONG AND  HOUSING  d e s c r i b e s why a n d how a l a r g e  the  constituted  HONG  OF P U B L I C  of  the the  dominating  1960 i s t h e r e f o r e  initiated  i t s present  housing.  t o be a n s w e r e d change  are:  i t s attitude  Why  i n 1954 d i d t h e  towards  housing  from  15  traditional 1960  did  sector  indifference the  which  To Hong their  were  answer  Kong  period,  2.1  Historic  h a s been  century.  The  (1,062  square  figure  area 2.1  and  i t and  land  on  the crown  area  places  i s suitable  public  fundamental housing?  low-income  what  public  i s  necessory  situations  t o review  backgrounds,  i n the post-war  on a n d t h e  opportunities  development.  1  coast  The  very  of  colony  o f Hong  kilometres). in  a  geographic  Background  a British  total  hilly land  post-war  i n the housing  make  of  why i n  governments?  the constraints  situated  Province,  (see  to the  and economic  and Geographic  appear  to  dynamics  questions,  social  respective  HONG KONG,  total  begin  intervention?  of low-income  foreseeable  and t o examine  their  mostly  and  and Singapore's h i s t o r i c  for  direct  Singapore  potential  these  political,  miles  of  i n the provision  the respective  housing  1  government  w i t h a new a t t i t u t e  improvement were  to positive  China's  since  Kong  steep.  forcultivation  the  i s about  terrain  of  Only or  Guangdong mid-l9th  410  Hong  square  Kong  i s  about  20% o f t h e  for  habitation  & figure 2.2).  This review i s based on t h e f a c t s p r o v i d e d by E n c y c l o p e d i a A m e r i c a n a ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; A c a d e m i c A m e r i c a n E n c y c l o p e d i a ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; T h e New E n c y c l o p e d i a B r i t a n n i a ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; A H i s t o r y o f Hong Kong (Endacott, 1958); H o u s i n g i n Hong Kong (editor: Wong, L.S.K., 1978); H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e ( e d i t o r : Yeh, Stephen, 1975).  16  Figure Source:  2.1  - The  Setting  Encyclopedia  o f Hong  Britannia,  Kong 1979.  and  Singapore  18  Britain Hong  Kong  acquired  island  included  the  was  next  ceded  the  rest  of  mainland 1898  Britain turn The  the  and  by  position,  was  1859,  recorded  the  purpose  Great  to  population  of  254,400  in  1898  function  as  a  Hong  Kong  has  been  main  source  of  escaping  opportunities, Australia  Britain  11,058 Hong  on  Victoria  population the  to  leased  acquired  China  Kong  Harbour,  populated  and  island which  in by  this  i n Hong  1841.  before  During  entrepot  in  Kong. and  on  is  of  13,252,733  one  and  growth long  events opening  to  of  of  for many  Hong  years  such  as  Suez  1898,  tons.  Other  depot  related  In  half  of the  as  other  trade.  Harbour  was  figure  86,941  was or  the  1859  growing  growth  factors.  As  refugees seeking  (1869),  the  in  i t s  discovery  Canal  of  Accordingly,  trade,  war  for  the  than  Kong  initial  geographic  depot  Victoria  recorded  1958).  second  and  the  tons.  quickly,  the  its  i t s strategic  using  1,164,640  grew  comprised  were  was  Hong  Island,  adjacent  development  major  of  areas  with  as  closely  the  trade of  which  islands,  with  (Endacott,  historic  rural  Kong,  a  Stonecutters  which  harbours.  in  ships  from  and  stages:  Kowloon,  colony  built  shipping  Kong  1842;  Hong  entrepot  (1851),  of  sparsely  ships  the  The  the  natural  century,  2,179  been  in three  Territories,  pattern  embracing  developed  increased  China  have  in  off-shore  for  ocean-going as  200  years.  was  nineteenth  New  99  finest  Kong  the  spatial  China  peninsula  Peninsula,  over  areas  from  ceded  of  the  world's  and  Kowloon  Peninsula,  occupation  and  1860;  period  urban  Hong  In  Kowloon  determined major  the  t i p of  mainly  Kowloon of  formally  China  for a  Kong  was  in  the  Hong  of the  of the  from better  gold fall  in of  19  the  Ch'ing  warlords 1930s  dynasty in  were  the  Kong.  By  Hong  Kong,  the  1941.  1910s  1940,  the  was  1941  movement  through  650,000.  However,  on  back  China  resulted  in past.  located off  crossroads 40  1945,  the  the  Japanese  behind  the  population  the  risen  occupied  to  by there  and  Hong  Kong.  flood  of  By  1951  an  independent  the  1.8  regional  invasion  in  growth  in  occupation  of  millions.  Japanese  was  the  a  Japanese'  the  resumption  into  of  and  before  had  revival  i n December  considerable  population  fell  of  British  The  subsequent  refugees  had  outward to  around  administration  greater  population  of  civil than  risen  war  in  had  ever  to  over  million.  SINGAPORE, is  factors  migration  streamed  i n the  consequent 1920s,  year  and  people  2  and  population  colony  Between  occured  the  a l l important  Hong  The  and  tiny  (585  The  modern  recognized  islets,  and  in  the the  low  history  time by  Indian  when West,  of  call  f o r her  also  to  open  up  new  and  of  of  in Southeast  Malay  figure  2.1  Singapore  of on  the the  &  that  route  f o r commerce.  226  figure  started  Malay  Together  the  with  its  square  miles  In  early  location  India  1819,  came  needed  Peninsula from  the  2.3).  i n the  she  It  at  Topographically,  strategic  saw  Asia.  Peninsula,  oceans.  territory.  Britain,  areas  the  Pacific  Singapore's  ships  nation  republic occupies  (see  vicinity  port  t i p of  the  kilometres)  is flat  a  southern  the  adjacent  century,  harbour  the  of  square  country  is  19th to  a  to  serve  to  China,  Thomas  be  good as  a  and  Stamford  Figure  2.3  - Singapore  S o u r c e : Cheng Lim-Keak,  1985. .  • •  •  N)  O  21  Raffles behalf  acquired of  the  established Chinese began of  in  in  of  of  Singapore's well  the  total  decades,  island  returned  to  colony  1946.  In  1826,  of  1824,  Johore  in  Southest  labours  made  on  Singapore  Singapore  was  Kuan  a  was Asia.  and  Malays  became  part  British  crown  as  to  the  as  1959,  first  September  the  Prime  1963,  in  of  the  had  Minister  after  a  grown  continued  to  figure  in  Asia  had  of  grow.  more  a of  184,554, the  20th  In  1901,  than  trebled  1941.  in  1942.  and  and  a  half  became  the  local  It  a  a  remained  years,  disrupted.  People's of  to  e a r l y decades  became  the  century,  population  The  1945  Southest  the  1840  fundamentally in  19th  to  experienced  three  Singapore  leader  the  the  Singapore  forces  for  and  significantly  of  number  769,216  Japanese  control  the  the  228,555.  s o c i e t y was  British  In  in Singapore was  mid-1860s  entrepot  During  occupation  Yew,  end  major  1891  recorded  In  the  Accordingly,  By  the  contributed  By a  in  population.  fell  i t s prewar  in  of  population  which  elected  In  which  1869  as  population  Japanese  Lee  in  immigration.  under  and  Canal  35,389,  through  The  In  indentured  steamship  established.  was  four  the  position  Singapore  in  Sultan  t r a d i n g post  Indian  numbers.  Singapore.  growth  the  Malay  Company.  British  traders,  of  dramatic  century,  the  India  Settlements,  Suez  development  mainly  major  from  1867.  coming  opening  East  large  Straits  The  been  a  Indian  arriving  colony  island  British as  and  the  the  during It  was  separate  crown  self-governing  state  Action  State  of  Party,  was  Singapore.  referendum  approving  22  merger, 14  Singapore  states  later,  in  the  on A u g u s t  Singapore's became  achieved  9,  new  1965, s e v e r e  an independent  of  Nations.  was  by t h e n  2.2  The Socio-Economic the  war  Situation  inter-related  development;  large  the  scale  the  Thus  and  Commonwealth Singapore  people.  problem  Housing  Prior  to  Programs  government  Post-  and  opportunities  housing  shortage.  socio-economic  in  the island  a r e t o be d i s c u s s e d h e r e :  needs  the  resulted  British  and Housing Public  of  23 m o n t h s  p o p u l a t i o n growth,  constraints  housing  constituted  Singapore's  issues  conflict  2 million  Scale  growth;  and  within  o f about  one  of Malaysia. Just  federation.  post-war  of Large  by becoming  internal  the  republic  a city-state  population  issues  from  dramatic  Initiation  Three  federation  separation  With  independence  basis  f o r Hong  intervention  into  for These  Kong a n d  the housing  sector.  HONG K O N G after  i t  population increase  1  regained  40%  important  During  a phenomenal  by B r i t a i n  Kong  rose  per  annum.  i n 1950, l e g a l  an  colony.  experienced  o f Hong of  controls play  was  1  role  t h e 1950s  and  growth  Despite  which  represented  an  the imposition of border  immigration  i n the overall  continued  p o p u l a t i o n growth  permitted migration averaged  T h i s review i s based on the facts (Drakakis-Smith, 1979); a n d H o u s i n g L.S.K., 1978).  population  i n 1945. I n 1951, t h e t o t a l  to 2 million,  illegal  of  to  of the  40,000 p e r  provided i n High Society i n H o n g K o n g ( e d i t o r : Wong,  23  year,  while  the  annual  influx  estimated  at  Obviously,  such p o p u l a t i o n  social  soaring  of  i n Hong  population great  was  entrepot  1949 and C h i n a ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n  and  a trade  by t h e U n i t e d  was  The  only choice  to  develop  although years  caused  as  brought  left  extensive  migrants  influx  activity  readily had  special  available,  certain  of r e f u g e e s  (Han,  to  trade  and  social  that  the  demolished,  of  China  Nations  in  i n general  and  argues  that  i n the post-war  i t a l s o b r o u g h t Hong Kong  were  long-term  urban  attributes  Those  f u r n i s h e d a l a r g e pool of post-war  Hong  Kong  labour,  and  Han p o i n t s o u t t h a t  Hong  was a n o t h e r  important  f o r post-war  industrialization  question  environment  as w e l l  experience.  conditions - capital,  policy  great  residents  amounts o f c a p i t a l ,  commercial  the o p p o r t u n i t y  1978). The r e m a i n i n g  physical  facing  r e s u l t e d i n the  from C h i n a  for industrialization.  Kong's l a i s s e z - f a i r e contributing  Republic  cheap l a b o u r . T h e r e f o r e ,  essential  entrepreneurship  was  Drakakis-Smith  them c o n s i d e r a b l e  industrial  without  the  t o Hong Kong t o g e t o u t of i t s dilemma  v a r i o u s problems,  with  on  in particular.  b e n e f i t s . Many of t h e r e f u g e e s who  fact  i n t h e K o r e a n War  manufacturing.  the l a r g e  1979).  challenge  the  embargo by t h e U n i t e d  States  impact  was n o t t h e o n l y  difficulty  Hong Kong's  of  (Drakakis-Smith,  was  Kong.  b e c a u s e o f t h e emergence of t h e P e o p l e ' s  imposition  immigration  growth posed a g r e a t  realities  Hong Kong. A n o t h e r foundation  illegal  between 30,000 and 80,000  and economic  The  of  factor  was: d i d Hong Kong have capable  the  o f accommodating t h e  24  development  of  large  massive  labour  related  factors  determining Hong  Kong  huge  number  million  was  acceptable  land  and to  housing the  and  living  accommodating  standards?  were,  post-war  number  situation return.  The  Two  economic  a  inter-  therefore,  initially  squatters  around,  others  down  of  development  of  allowed seen the  were  city,  on  of  of  the  of  problem.  settle  some  where  were  r o o f t o p s . In Hong  Kong  structures.  the one  settled  in  through a  large  that  if  refugees these  in  over  areas  hoped  Squatter  the  would  people  post-war  they  wished.  located  1949, was  no  areas  The  in  i t was  300,000  control  Therefore,  on  junks  were  (Fong,  over  were  As  a  result,  vacant on  the  squatter  land sea,  that  the  1980).  In  facilities the  the  immigrants  estimated  infrastructure was  the  such  these as  sector  economy.  appalling.  settlements,  the  help and  housing  accommodate  either  to  happen  local  was  u n a v a i l a b l e . There  design  not  to  i n v a r i o u s p l a c e s . Some w e r e  p o p u l a t i o n of  squatter  to  many  housing  tenement  accommodation  the  shortage  1951  unable  i n China  great  m a j o r i t y of  existing  felt  did  into  symptom  were  the  spead  the  and  a  formal  reasonable  1945  find  caused  the  Therefore,  this  absorbed  housing  a  government  quietened  were  at  in  refugees  visiable  generally  that  evidence  or,  The  most  squatter  no  between  However,  gradually  growth  refugees.  camps  of  population  expanding  of  subdivision.  or  was  immgrants  squatter  the  at  significance  There  Hong  the  -  sudden  problem.  and  force  manufacturing  Kong.  The  in,  scale  layout  were and  settlements  25  were  always  appearence  A  a of  in  Kowloon.  narrow a  leasing  all  were  near  the  floor from  of  the  nine  to  quite  conditions  in  tradition  of  Although  the  housing  taken  becoming by  to  the  in  and  physical  either  economic  and  more to  by  the  and  The  severe.  to  large no  units and of  described a  actually  tenement contained  1952).  Kong of  prior  Hong  unhealthy  provision  problem  those  and  1.  almost  situation  squatter areas.  the  3  but  Ingrams  bunks,  majority  obvious,  improve  roughly  4.5  a i r . Cooking  a s s i s t a n c e i n the and  government  or  to  light  i n Hong  overcrowded,  especially  more  great  tenements  government social  The  4  high,  Only  {Ingrams,  situation  storeys  cubicles.  primitive. was  existed  floor,  families  twenty  housing  to  which  from  of  by  in six tiered  for three than  was  into  and  in width  and  serious  five  ratio  tenements  access  to  Kong  was  caused  tenements  three  varied  tenements  in  The  refugees  Hong  visible,  breadth  sleeping  lived  less  sublet  the  more  the  shortage,  areas  which  discouraging.  people  million  communal  intended  even  one  over  usually  direct  were  tenents  normally  million  was  had  inside  Therefore, was  lots  s u b d i v i d e d and  overcrowding  the  areas.  were  w i t h i n most  facilities  security,  though  length  windows  health,  tenement  tenement  1950s  with  of  existing  i n the  long  metres,  many  proportion  early  on  toilet  the  Subdivision,  the  Primary  to  Kong.  the  overcrowding  built  Hong  higher  absorbed  in  threat  caused  Kong's  and  of by  1954 two  insecure  There  squatter  was  no  housing. the  severe  population,  significant  situation.  to  action  Perhaps,  was the  26  trade  embargo  on  Chinese  government  revenues  government  t o make a n y  Nevertheless, of  industrialization  increasing with was  adequate still  public  SINGAPORE  had  1  a  was  annual  total  growth  It  was  made  up  a  0.8  percent  to  Singapore  of  3.5  the  high  in  of  of  the  between  resulted  providing  was  of  low-income  1947,  938,000.  increase the  The  the  total  census  of  indicated  decade per  1947-57.  annum,  movement  Malaya  in  the  which  d u r i n g the  F e d e r a t i o n of  an  intervention  scale  1,484,000,  through  in  people  p o p u l a t i o n growth  natural  annum  necessity  fostered.  census year  the  relationship  large  of  percent  percent  then  a  rate  of  government  latently  the  4.3  per  decrease  reluctance  housing  direct of  in that  of  increase  from  and  p o p u l a t i o n of  rate a  idea  to  the  importance  being  very  in Singapore  recorded a  and  Although  years. According  population 1957  program  Kong  the  non-existent, the  the  recognition  labour,  of  substantial  investments.  i n Hong land,  a  to  increasing  housing.  housing  post-war  large  recognition  caused  contributed  the  industrialization,  an  and  goods  (Lee  of Soo  and  people Ann,  1973).  Post-war The  1  high  rate  Singapore of  thus  faced  p o p u l a t i o n growth  an  acute  resulted  population in  an  problem.  increasingly  This r e v i e w i s b a s e d o n t h e f a c t s p r o v i d e d i n HDB A n n u a l Report 1960 (Singapore Housing and Development Board); I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n in Singapore (Lee Soo Ann, 1973); and P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e ( e d i t o r : Yeh, S t e p h e n , 1975).  27  high  rate  of  unemployment.  percent  ( L i m Chong-Yah,  pressed  to maintain  It  was  and  banking would  obvious  of that  entrepot and  that  population  trade  land  The was  also  of  state,  the  Singapore  of  given  spectre  of  responsible been  needed  and  the severe  1973).  pace  1973).  with  in this  the  rapid i t was  centred  around  meet  island  trade  Therefore  pattern  the challenge  state  from  a  of  colony  which  has  a l l had a in  t o a program  Singapore.  and  the  between political  influence  S i n g a p o r e . L e e Soo Ann at  the  into  late  in  power  The  t o an independent  significant  unemployment came  process  relationships  Malaya,  unemployment  that  i n post-war  economic  drive  greater  government  committed  ( L e e Soo Ann,  up t h e i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n  Federation  for leadership  even  hard-  no l o n g e r  changes  status  industrialization  that,  economic  by p o l i t i c a l  the  t o keep  could  was  expansion of entrepot  Soo Ann,  speeding  political  and  incomes  13.5  for agricultural.  political  competition the  was  resource  pushed  change  (Lee  and s e r v i c e s  urgency  real  the normal  the traditional  reached  The S i n g a p o r e economy  n o t be s u f f i c i e n t  industrialization  limited  1984).  per capita  anticipated  increase  I n 1959, unemployment  50s  the  i n 1959  of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n  on  argues  and  sixties, would  the any have  (Lee Soo Ann,  1 973) .  In regard  the late to  arranging  industrialization as  a basic  1950s,  human  Singapore therefore i t s physical  a s h a d Hong need,  a major  Kong  faced  and s o c i a l  i n the early  occupier  of land,  problems  in  environment f o r 1950s. a n d an  Housing, economic  28  sector,  was  industrialization growth  rate  early  1927  SIT  very  had  the  (SIT),  into  being  under  Nevertheless,  SIT  carry  large-scale  out  1975).  any  It  effective only  was  also  force  2,049  aggravated destroyed  under  during and  as  result  thousands  unauthorised  dwellings.  The The  housing  demand  migration another  and  permanently the  very  reason  population  housing  low  high  contributed  had  lost  settled need  its  of  to  the  the  was  Board  made  1942  (Teh  had  increasing  temporary  one  (Teh  Cheang  Wan,  changed  from  single  persons  to  be  an  completed  the  were  Japanese own  the  war.  a  Teh  was  their  after  demand  1975).  to  Wan,  houses  during  character  to  problem  of  to  power Cheang  s h a r p l y as  According  1960.  Ordinance.  funds  housing  the  in  no  SIT  towards  until  Improvement "given  as  Singapore  (HDB)  deteriorated  rate.  housing  constructed  rose  Singapore.  problem  control  housing  birth  By The  people  rental  of  Thousands  further  in  insufficient  War. lack  of  situation  for  by  shops.  of  was  population  public  construction"  development.  Pacific  occupation  housing  Singapore  handicapped  the a  the  53  of  progress  Development  high  problem  establishment  housing  and  a  anticipating  space.  a  field  i t s Ordinance  i n urban  houses  the  little  and  of  been  people's  Housing  state  physical  long  entered  through  the  this  limited  low-income  of  came  a  Trust  the  formation  situation  the  government  Improvement solving  under  shortage  the  as  to  within  Housing Although  critical  result  Cheang was  and  of Wan,  that  the  become  a  T h i s meant  that  families,  and  29  could  not  housing  be  large  dilapidated  part  for  these  time  of  shop-houses.  overdue  shortage, 10  effectively  Many  o f them s l a c k e d b a s i c  demolition.  houses  a s many  city  were  people  as  reached  saturation,  new  of  Development thousands  They or  of  lived  city.  Annual  people  and  post-war  Annual  health  were  1947  iron  to  the  the end  sheets  and  other  settlements  1960).  The  to  Area  settlements 1960  made  with  on  Houing  and  tens  of  o f o l d wooden  salvaged  squatter  house  (Varma and  o f t h e War  huts  and  housing  Central  squatter  in  squatter  the  the  living  of the s i t u a t i o n very  much  the housing  blocks  i n the City  became  s c a r c e r a n d more  Report,  formed  by  of  cubicles  in  old  utilities  accommodated  of h o u s i n g  Report,  Report  survey  problems By  into  of  no  material. sanitation  communities  were  hazards.  brief  period.  contained  over  expensive  makes  greater  than  shortage 1,000 as  was  i t clear those very  people  time  went  that  of the  the pre-  s e r i o u s . Many  to the acre. on  (HDB  Land  Annual  1960).  After  1947,  building  public  Report,  a  period  existing  consisted  result  According  were  i n congested  (HDB  This  war  Board  a  normally  immgrants  rusty corrugated  water  fire  the  As  they  the supply  fringe  centre  sub-divided  1 9 7 9 ) . When  boxes,  s u b d i v i s i o n ^ o f the  the  Sastry,  the  by  stock.  A  were  met  total  1947-1959,  efforts housing. of  were  made  According  20,907  averaging  units 1,740  to to  were  increase the  HDB  built  by  units  per  the pace 1960  the SIT annum.  of  Annual i n the Private  30  enterprise Together less  built  then  than over  years,  the  accommodate  the  less  squatter people the  third made  backlog  of  already  both  in  living  squatter  years  in size,  and  quick  h a d t o be d o n e  was  housing  to adequately  improve  the  accommodate  city's  social  the development  key t o making  progress.  and  the growing physical  of manufacturing  and  unscrupulous out of one one they  1983).  to increase the provision accommodate  areas of  Altogether  clear  The g o a l  in  and another  It  something  and  profits  ( Singapore  that  resulted in  an e s t i m a t e d  i n slums areas.  to  population  35% o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n  was  not  overcrowded  were  only  housing.  i n the central  I n 1959, t h e r e  people  people  increase,  squatter  growing  post-war  therefore  up about  situation.  the  The  population  the  f o r decent  o p p o r t u n i t y t o make  million  of a m i l l i o n  could  i n t h e post-war  congested,  of the poor. a  In  period.  accommodate  total  persons.  produced  same  could  the  o l d structures  s e t t l e m e n t s were  the  which  already waiting  crisis.  this  over  of the p o p u l a t i o n  further  using  built  641,000  of housing  was b e i n g  units  However,  units half  housing  suffering  quarter  was  dilapidated  were  were  persons.  than  shortage  cases City  units  housing  increasing  many  19,000  the period  t h e huge  The an  40,000 300,000  increase  mention  some  t o change t h e of  low-income  p o p u l a t i o n and t o environment  which  was  sought  to as  31  2.3  The  Initiation  HONG K O N G . their  homes  settlement  Shui  Po.  fires  and  As  the  1953  about  person  In  response  appointed advise All  -  an  on  the  streets  25th  December 20  to  situation,  measures  recommendation  formed  the  These  recommendations  previous  basic  1954,  plan  lost  their  of  the  s h o u l d be the  adopted  the  found  city,  large  the  in a  the  squatter 25th  population  squatter  fire.  Kong  Government  Urban  Council  t o meet  this  were  abrupt  Sham  period  whole  f o r resettlement undertaken an  squatter  them  the  sub-committee  represented  lost  neighboring  Hong of  a  the  five  home  sub-committee  of  of  During out  of  of  t h e r e were  ones.  persons  Kip Mei,  half  arcades  in every  the  Shek  buildings  and  small  in  58,000  almost  proceeded  of  emergency  what  Although  Housing  1953,  fire  permanent  year  number  Public  day  great  the  into  December one  Christmas  the  in  moved  a  Low-Income  Kowloon.  accommodation remainder  On  1  in  in  of  to  crisis.  accepted  and  during  1954.  departure  from  policy:  " T h e t w o m a i n r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w e r e t h a t , a s l a n d was short, i t w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y t o r e s e t t l e s q u a t t e r s i n p e r m a n e n t multistorey buildings; and, that s i n c e t h i s u n d e r t a k i n g would not a t t r a c t s u f f i c i e n t p r i v a t e c a p i t a l , the c o n s t r u c t i o n should be undertaken directly by Government and financed from p u b l i c f u n d s . " (Hong Kong A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1954).  In  1  the  Spring  of  the  This review is based on ( D r a k a k i s - S m i t h , 1979); The Housing Authority, 1 980T~j Wong, L . S . K . , 1978).  year  a  temporary  Department  of  the facts provided in High Society F i r s t Two M i l l i o n s (The Hong Kong and H o u s i n g i n Hong Kong (editor:  32  Resettlement to  be  was  building  squatters.  under  blocks,  each  occupied. per  ground  housing  over  design floor  a  Commissioner  These  t o meet  the  clearance  the  government  20,000  was  cope  their  with  own  the  retail  of  resettlement  of  were  flush  six-storey  completed was  very  metres.  and low. Water  latrines  were a l l  inadequate.  Although  provided, and  emergency  permanent  square  grossly  demand  prevention  building  2.2  was  Resettlement,  constructed  these  and  were  space  and  Eight  only  facilities  shop  to  of  for  with  persons,  standard  facilities  floor  connected  persons.  space  cooking  insufficient  year  54,000  capita  standpipes,  the  for  The  communal.  and  During  accommodation  had  up  responsible for a l l matters  illegal  The  set  the  requirements  the  amount  residents through  was  therefore  the  hawker  trade.  Rents  in  the  amortization  of  Eventually,  rents  standard  construction  flat,  of  were  such  squatter  (Drakakis-Smith,  expand  would within  the  permit about  operation  based  on  loan  only  per  $14  charges.  lower  than  a  40  repayment. month  According  those  already paying  year  which  for  for  a to  a  large  their  huts  1979).  policy  a  two  assumed  were  were  including  water  r e n t s were  at  multi-storey  with  at  of  families  Government's and  flats  costs,  fixed  inclusive  Drakakis-Smith, number  resettlement  view  to  years. a  new  the  close  of  1954  was  to  accelerate  r e s e t t l e m e n t program  as  removing  squatter  By  the  direction  the  end and  of  worst the  impetus.  year,  f a r as  funds areas  resettlement  33  SINGAPORE. events,  rather  government's When  the  1959,  a  than  manner  fire  most  of  The  the  different  hazards,  towards  fully-elected  resignation  demoralised  the  remaining  Improvement  Trust  organization.  Within  weeks  of  SIT  and  legal  began  to  set  powers  management,  The the  1st  the  to urban  Housing February,  portfolio coming  up  of  the  into  housing  required  deal  renewal  and  It  Minister the  of HDB  I t was  families  formed  during  accommodation  f o r the  development  projects,  a  Law  and  to the  left  with  the  greatly Singapore  newly to  June  elected  dissolve  more  the  funds  and  construction  and  problems.  (HDB)  quick  meet  was  established  Board  under  study  of  the  150,000  units  the  demand,  to  to provide  people  people  of  were  for  the  alternative  affected  affected  After  relieve  accommodation  decade,  on the  extent  that  provide  rehouse  SIT  officers  the  the  in  N a t i o n a l Development.  r e s e t t l e m e n t of to  the  Statutory  a  in  Singapore.  s h a t t e r e d the  Board  is  to  Area,  new  related  in  political  power  of  housing  estimated  in Central  into  organization  made  1960-1970  change  legislation  public  and  the  office,  draft  Development  1960.  problem.  overcrowding  with  came  and  to  viable  Kong,  experienced  staff  in  Hong  problem  officers  of  prepare  a more  being,  from  coming  to  housing  Government  expatriate  from  marked  the  mass  government  1  In  attitude  new  service.  1  by  by the  T h i s r e v i e w i s b a s e d on t h e f a c t s p r o v i d e d i n HDB A n n u a l 1960 (Singapore Housing and Development Board); and H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e ( e d i t o r : Yeh, S t e p h e n , 1975).  public urban  Report Public  34  renewal  program  by  c l e a r a n c e . I t was  slum  sector the  could  i n the  only  C e n t r a l Area  built  and  middle  The  HDB  study  made  some  110,000  units  Five-Year  income  Building  approved  with  Plan  aimed  building  $230  million  program  role  of  a  program  Two  were  types  of  low  80  bathroom  standard:  square  facilities. in rent  the  feet  scale  in  were  Nevertheless,  120  by  Board  the  and  was  Government. units  at  a  Report, for  played  a  The  cost  10,000  beginning  was  of  only  program  emergency  two  to  square  area  10,000  units  housing  A  low-income  sanitation.  service  for these  the  1960-1970.  implemented.  built:  with  modern  years  a l l  1975).  period  government for  for  to  Annual  new  decade  units 1960). public  dominant  people. A  of  The  remarkable  1961.  i t provided  housing  the  the  averaging  a  private  government  the  (HDB  successfully  flats  of  year  especially  housing  and  per  the  had  housing  1960-1964,  i n which  was built  public  removed  Wan,  the  prepared  represented  three  the  Cheang  year  those  that  during  that  ten  was  period  first  Report,  (Teh  f o r the  housing  self-contained  kitchen,  units  clear  52,842  in providing shelter  7,320 u n i t s  and  the  public such  rehouse  some m o d i f i c a t i o n s by  in Singapore,  Building  in  over  low-income  housing  of  at  groups  i t  to  estimated  40,000  Program  later  A  about  upper  provide  of  further  and  the  five  S$20.  were  estates,  three The  feet  with  units  one  of  essential  flats  including  emergency  type  was  of  space  and  such  living  type  program.  According  extensive  rooms  bathrooms  year  room  and  to  1960  and  cooking  were The HDB  built monthly Annual  comprehensive  services,  such  and as  35  electricity, facilities clinics,  The  such  and  on  from  of  the  are  different  strategies development.  large  of  i.e.  one  had  the  which  greatest  Macro-economic national  we  governments  have  thought  on  i n the  there  one  group  of  (Wu,  also  Singapore  for exploring the  countries.  developing  1954  have  been  to their  public  briefly the  process  housing  to  that  the  estates.  that  there  development  development.  government  to  Based  development  pursue socio-economic  i t s the  been  mentioned  of  in  countries'  has  approach  of  Since  countries  response  the  process  urban-states  own  implications  development growth  for  strategies, strategies",  1978).  strategies the  were  distance.  h o u s i n g and  "macro-economic  influence  after  cases  countries has  growth  good  are various  theory  calls  and  response  each  Wu  Kong  low-income  housing  Whilst  policies,  has  of  developing  housing the  their  chapter,  theories, in  that scale  schools  role  in  centres,  Low-Income  two  of  spaces  walking  in developing these  Communal  community  open  the  low-income  active  and  first  different the  urban  are  available.  schools,  within  of  the m a j o r i t y  problems  construction  on  or  Singapore  development  governments  were  and  i n Hong  respectively,  distinguished  and  estates  Programs  between  1960  are  playgrounds  i n the  Kong  socio-economic  In  water  shopping centres,  Housing  relationship  housing  piped  Socio-Economic Dynamics  Hong  the  as  either  Public  and  and  children's  provided  2.4  gas  Second  were  World  adopted  War.  The  by  many  important  36  factors  were  labour, with  seen  resources  economic  assumed  to  t o be  and  development  be  additional  assumption  requires  by  investment  these  favours as  and  chief  as  could more  be  of  economic  be  seen  argued  that  considered  any  t o be  is  said  too  substantial economically  high  approach  the  t o be  public unwise.  projects  argues  for  since  strategies  the  is  from  Provision  the of  might  be  used  input-output economically  housing  program  to any key  public  non-productive sector.  resources that  views  industries.  away  negative. in a  be  industrialisation,  capital  as  same  One  for housing policy,  investment the  key  in  foreign  divergent  approach  selective  scarce  It i s often  investment  Consequently,  as  other  An  higher  by  industrialisation  through  considered  could  and  growth.  development  growth  diverts  might be  few  macro-economic  factories.  housing  in a  would  encouraging  are  national  The  that  development  Capital  There  i n major  were  is  growth  population,  rapid  i t s implications  which  can  the  equated  Industrial  resources,  loans.  of  investment  of  rapid  industries housing  international  investment  terms  program  among  was  industrialisation.  investments.  infrastructure.  goal  achieve  save  capital,  f o r growth  economic  citizen.  of  assumption  through  national  natural  proponents  concentrated  In  i s that  growth  implicit  achieved  exporting  massive  well  be  capital  to  availability  the conditions  An  individual  large  propensities  among  only  the  accummulated  and  endogenous.  could  benefit  national  t e c h n o l o g y . Economic  development  time  the  to  It  build  ratio  of  efficient. could  be  37  It from  can  the  be  further  promotion  delayed  until  of  such  will  allow  afford  the  provision  housing  may  conditions  housing are  The of  development.  and economic  of development.  growth  i s  separable  not  from  environment further  the social  of  also  resources  o n human  development  o f human  determines  the  utilization.  i s most  important  for  under  showcase  these  projects  A good  definition  world  economic  social growth  towards  measure and  development,  of economic  nor i s  and  physical  on  i n i t sr e l a t i o n  and  technology,  capital  the  resources, but  clearly  seen  i t  a n d a means t o  depends  and n a t u r a l  of the  economic  The  of  and  low a n d  technology.  resources  efficiency  since  process  industrialisation  on c a p i t a l  and  to  better  health  i n i t s narrow  Industrialisation  not only  development  i s an  development.  development.  when  critical  context  i s both a purpose  that  limited  i n the existing  growth  only  government  c a n be k e p t v e r y  lies  a  However,  availability  social  that, i s  i n economic  in public  only  be  unrest.  strategy  I t i s true  detracts  should  condition;  t o be a c c e p t a b l e  political  of t h i s  the  persuasive  Therefore,  industrialisation  development, rate  wages  are likely  to soften  weakness  system,  surplus  growth  or  improvements i s not  which  improvement  living  workers,  are plentiful.  necessary  economic  better  towards  labour  projects  any program  the i n d i v i d u a l  of  healthier  replacements  aggregate  either  contribute  of  that  time as the o v e r a l l  welfare  consequently  argued  dynamic  which  investment and  role  of  to the  in  turn  resource  38  In  the f i r s t  housing,  chapter  we  which i s comprised  have  discussed  the  a major component of the p h y s i c a l environment.  housing suggests interpretation  that of  a  new  rational,  development  should be e s t a b l i s h e d to guide Hong Kong  and  Singapore  in  based  and  The nature of on  a  i t s socio-economic  future  housing  investment  in  broader context, housing.  a r e good examples f o r developing t h i s  idea f u r t h e r . While most d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s were r e l u c t e n t allocate scale  funds  political housing  public  the  major  housing  programs.  factors  response. What p o t e n t i a l were  which  It  caused  is this  socio-economic  worth active  dynamics  of  f o r e s e e a b l e t o the policy-makers i n Hong Kong and  Singapore? Why was a low-income p u b l i c housing approach L i k e many other n a t i o n a l governments, Hong Kong  to  to housing, Hong Kong and Singapore began l a r g e  low-income  understanding  of  of three a s p e c t s , i . e . housing as a  b a s i c human need, housing as an economic a c t i v i t y , as  nature  and  Singapore  have  been  the  active  taken?  governments  in  of  searching for  economic development. They c o n s c i o u s l y pursued p o l i c i e s  designed  to  economic  foster  economic  prosperity  filter  in  the  down.  conviction  that  they  are  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from other d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s because they  view  housing  would  growth  Nevertheless,  as a p a r t of an i n t e g r a t e d process of development. They  have achieved success i n both housing and economic growth. The between  basis  for establishing  low-income  urban  housing  the and  positive the  relationship  process of s o c i o -  economic development was p r o v i d e d by the a b i l i t y  of  low-income  39  housing  to  satisfy  housing  needs,  economizing developed public  on  As  the use  economy,  resource two  component  of  situation of  an  Singapore cost  Or,  in  Kong  the of  housing  disparity  match human  As  t o meet words,  presented  of as  the an  was,  the  was  demand.  situation.  It  was  also  Government  intervention  settlements  and  the  to  threat  further  socio-  the  offered  who  a  still  were  able  housing  in  the  the  major  Singapore. 1950s  growth severe the  The  was  that  and  the  constraints study  by  to provide  growing  meant  major  competitive  is  and  in  economic  the  enough  population.  situation  and  that  for  a  needs  could  the high  not  be  The  increasing  squatter  Kong  represented  the  to  i n the housing prevent  a  housing  and  the  wealth  r e s i d e n t s i n Hong  order  not  of  slum  in  and  shown  and  necessary  i n the  to the  created  population  a  of  low-income  development  population  population basic effective  people  i n 1940s  existing of  of  Kong  which  the needs  fruit  scale  step  critical  was  the  Singapore.  Hong  market  i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n  proportion  was  between needs,  than  large  economic  Singapore  the housing  other  and  in  and  the  low-income  manufacture Kong  of  provision  labour  development.  HDB,  and  and  which  basic  economic  low  Cheap  unbalanced of  environment  necessary  commodities,  i n Hong  provision on  need,  to m i l l i o n s  export  physical  a  for industrialisation  of  basic  land. Rather  was  o f Hong  human  urban-states.  price  population's  the  urban  programs  basic  accommodation  of  low-income  the development  development  a  large  improving  housing  economic  the  same  political  stability.  s e c t o r was  increasingly  expansion  deterioration  of  of the  squatter social  and  40  physical  As  environment  a major  i n Hong  component  Kong  of  and  the  Singapore.  physical  environment,  provision  of  well  planned  low-income  public  efficient  way  to  mobilize  under-used  land  Hong  and  Singapore  among  most  Kong  countries  in  the  world.  expansion  of  of  development  high  in  public Hong for  The  public housing  Kong's the  illegal  programs.  through  Resettlement,  income that, pushed  public  a  land  could  housing  political  the  in  provided  a  only  be  of  further  squatter  land  economic  Kong  and  Singapore  good  basis  in  of  the  i t was the  which  populated  their  Resettlement, progress  Both  to  p o i n t e d out  shortage  for  be  their  report  by  "ridiculous  colony  could  removed"  political were  response  realties.  Here  describing  the  initiation  of  dynamics Hong  political  emergencies  urban-states  for  Hong  an  to  be  relieved  (Commissioner  i f for  1955).  although by  was  social  socio-economic  Singapore  As  densely  c l e a r a n c e of  critical  was  resources.  prevention  in both  which  Commissioner and  was  land  ownership,  structures  The  Therefore,  value  squatter  economic  strangled  the  s q u a t t e r s e t t l e m e n t s and  development. was  are  housing  the  is  was an  Kong  (in  Hong  deeply  than rooted  extract  relationship i t s low-income  from  between public  to  Kong  public  more  the  and  response  change), far  of  development  Singapore the  housing simply  programs  in  broader  the  Hong  the  fire  housing  problem  disasters,  welfare  low-  demonstrate  housing  fire  of  was  and  in  in  both  programs.  The  socio-economic  Kong  Annual  hazard  program:  Report  and  the  41  "These unhappy developments had two important results. F i r s t , they t r a n s f o r m e d t h e s q u a t t e r problem from a stubborn and a p p a r e n t l y endemic e v i l i n t o an emergency o f the first order; and second the f i r e s freed f o r proper development substantial areas of valuable land which the presence of squatters had r e n d e r e d u n u s a b l e a n d whose r e m o v a l h a d d e f i e d a l l i n g e n u i t y . "  It as  was  both  fires  a social  were  The income was  used  housing  carry which  the  to  fire  risks,  the land i s needed  From  of which quickly"  t h e above  initiation  of large  Singapore  we  in  contexts.  Although  housing  programs  components economic features  t h e community  they  these  cities  share  Kong  development. o f Hong  political  Kong  many  the  Kong  common  public  are essential  strategies  are four  and  for  and economic  events,  and Singapore  1955).  i n Hong  social,  historic  There  to  community  and purpose housing  Hong  homes;  o c c u p a t i o n . And t h e  public  geographic,  simply  and p r e s t i g e  the  low-income  established  i n the i n i t i a t i o n  order  i t  afford  f o r Resettlement,  by d i f f e r e n t  i n both  fireproof  because  of the background  two  the  t o develop low-  c a n no l o n g e r  are in i l l e g a l  (Commissioner  marked  and  Nevertheless,  and  and  historic,  social  squatters.  hygienic  seen  the situation.  was  represent  scale  of gradually and  t h e change  to public  review  their  t o change  and t h r e a t  see that  features  development,  squatters "are not r e s e t t l e d  deserve,  the squatter areas  needs  make  that  because  to  chances  to resettle  need...or  are resettled  t h e s q u a t t e r s e t t l e m e n t s were  and a b l o c k  as p r o v i d i n g  clarified  they  that  problem  method  further  they  and  seen  public  because  land  made c l e a r  for  main  common  Singapore's  large  42  scale  government  were  both  intervention  urban-states  conditions  of  rapid  Secondly,  the  shortage  of  economic  development  lands  in  both  ownership. able  to  Finally,  satisfy  Nevertheless, between the  Hong  Kong  post-war  because  i n both Kong the  the  and  cause  of  the  Singapore whilst  had  Hong  difference initiated that in  of  their  years, while design  that  Kong is  in  a  Singapore public public  i t was  standard  of  was  in  to  A  of  did  have  not Hong  when in  government  Kong's  the  1960.  GNP  capita  A l l these  in  prepared  Hong in  i n Hong  For Kong  i n Hong  Kong,  was  an  in Singapore  the  A  second  major  political  change  housing  had  than  is  a  in  in  that  housing  A  fourth  program  much  differences  Singapore. Kong  that  assistance in  instance,  needs.  is  difference  was  not  differences  tradition.  public  per  programs.  lower  such  was  immigrants  more  public  housing  greater  whilst  major  squatted  difference  significant.  third  the  the  the  socio-  cases  note  and  experienced  on  generally in  both  much  refugees  tradition  housing  was  Thirdly,  were  major  was  far less  years.  housing  better  One  impact  Singapore  that  1954,  constraints  p o p u l a t i o n growth,  immigration  post-war  severe  sector  Singapore.  important  in  with  important  population  is  together  i t is also  influx  difference  shortage,  population's basic  large  of  pressure.  Singapore  private  under  economic  urban-states.  and  Firsts-they  and  increasing  a  impact  posed  sector.  industrialization  growth  housing  resources,  Hong  housing  pursuing  population  serious  land  i n the  lower  were  was than  reflected  the  initial  contingency Furthermore, Singapore.  nature the  43  The  potential  development  process  However,  housing  resources  as  their  dynamics  an  limited  in as  direct  limited  constructing  seems  group?  social  goals?  And  ensure  the  common  programs subsequent  the  two  chapters.  their  public  What  f e a t u r e s and  and  were  planning  public  Kong  and  achieve  towards housing".  and  the  who  policies  used  city-states  in  measures  of  the  the  will  be  economic  of  approach  But  effectiveness  differences  goal  housing to  groups  by  in  ensure  were  housing  used  the the to  programs?  respective analysed  with  was  was to  the  clear.  Singapore,  low-income  design  in  were  requires  essential  the  housing  Singapore  activity  c o u l d Hong  assistance  socio-economic  of  Kong  economic  that  what  low-income  resources,  "low-income  "low-income"  The  an  economic  It  the  Hong  i n p u t . How  development?  of  housing  further  in  44  CHAPTER 3. ADMINISTRATION AND IN HONG KONG AND It public  FINANCE OF  SINGAPORE  PUBLIC HOUSING  1  i s important to d i s c u s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n h o u s i n g because t h e s e f a c t o r s  available mobilized  for  public  As  low-income  i t i s now  public  u r b a n - s t a t e s were i n i t i a t e d , a s p e c t s have e v o l v e d ,  going  about  housing  the hand  three  with  they are  decades  administrative  of  resources  i n which  programs  i n hand  finance  both the  h o u s i n g and t h e manner  and u t i l i z e d .  large-scale  indicate  and  since  i n t h e s e two and  financial  the development  of  public housing.  Three here:  first,-  second,  The  means  the a l l o c a t i o n  housing  arrangements of p u b l i c  administration  has  regarding  o f t h e major  orientation  of p u b l i c  h o u s i n g programs.  program,  which  for public housing; housing;  and  flats.  for Public  i t i s one  housing  finance are reviewed  for public  housing  Organization  government on p o l i c i e s  and  organization  that  public  1  administration  the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Administrative  Public advises  of  the the f i n a n c i a l  the t h i r d ,  3.1  aspects  Housing  a dual public  role.  housing,  actors determining Second,  First i t  it  the  which policy  implements  involves various a c t i v i t i e s  of  T h e d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s c h a p t e r i s b a s e d on facts provided in: Hong Kong H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y A n n u a l R e p o r t (1975-1985); S i n g a p o r e H o u s i n g and d e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d A n n u a l R e p o r t (1960-1979); H o u s i n g i n Hong Kong (editor: Wong, L.S.K., 1978); P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e ( e d i t o r : Yeh, S t e p h e n , 1975); and H o u s i n g P r o b l e m s and P u b l i c H o u s i n g Program i n Hong Kong ( F o n g , 1980).  45  planning,  land  acquisition,  management.  The  is  critical  therefore  policy  design,  administrative to the  organization  setting  and  will  review  At  administration organization  first  in of  Government  of  we  Hong Kong  by  i t s government  Crown C o l o n y , Hong Kong which  is the  The L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l  expenditure Governor At  of p u b l i c  of  principle  government.  His  The  on p o l i c y office  Chief  and  services. finance  and a b r a n c h  In  addition  a  number  important  Hong Kong  the  legislation  Executive  and c o n t r o l s  Council,  advises  i n Hong Kong  i s the  chief  executive  organized  into  housing,  six policy  semi-autonomous  branches d e a l i n g  with  Territories.  organization  statutory  housing  services,  s e c u r i t y , and s o c i a l  o f t h e New  government  of the  t h e work o f  environment, economic  for administration  of which, as f a r as  i s the Governor's  and s u p e r v i s e s  i t h a s two r e s o u r c e  to the c e n t r a l of  the  is  information,  In a d d i t i o n ,  the  and  Secretary  co-ordinates  b r a n c h e s b a s e d on p r o g r a m a r e a s : and  As a B r i t i s h  m a t t e r s of p o l i c y .  government d e p a r t m e n t s a n d  affairs  Council  enacts  general  i s t h e G o v e r n o r who  of p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  Secretariat. adviser  figure  housing  the  by  f u n d s . The E x e c u t i v e  on a l l i m p o r t a n t  the centre  Government  are  achievement  examining  central  Council.  home  housing  the public  administratered  over both t h e L e g i s l a t i v e  all  the  administration.  presides  the  for public  and  goals.  HONG KONG.  the  construction,  bodies.  i s concerned,  there  The most are the  46  Housing  Authority  There  have  organization low-income the  for  the  metroplitan was  responsible for  select  Council's  executed  these  squatters, and  the  areas  the  the  also  were  and  management.  designated  the  of  first  over The  on  Urban  the  second  was  of in  competent  throughout  was  also  Hong  Kong  authority  the  charge  with  estate  headed the  the  Department  areas  and Two  the  selection  of  Resettlement  of  estates, important  Resettlement sites  estates,  Department  a  Urban  resettlement  of  financial  by  resettlement  Resettlement  settlements.  the  in  practice,  resettlement  the  one  determined  multi-storey  to  areas"  the  Department  out  P u b l i c Works  completion  the  management  charged  In  squatter  the  At  by  who  Council,  other  the  concerned of  1954.  areas.  carried  new  in  "approved  Resettlement squatters  while  of  the  Territories,  Committee  executive  construction of  of  for  and  Resettlement  and  of  The  for  the  administration  the  New  the  Policy  outside  authority  established.  policies  responsibility  buildings  was  urban  priorities  large-scale  Council  In  A  since  initiated  and  created.  administrative  were  the  in  the  programs  clearance  prevention  Departemnt. design  Kong.  Resettlement and  Kong  factory areas,  policy  was  policies  i n Hong  committees  were  commissioner  in  as  control  resettlement  management,  changes  Commissioner the  squatter  Two of  Hong  for  many  Urban  estates,  the  Council.  housing  Ordinance  resettlement  Urban  housing  the  the  and  been  public  Resettlement  the  public  beginning,  authority  and  and  the  which  was  handed  the  Department  for  who  control  of  the  47  resettlement Finance  Branch  The 1954  program of  second  was  to  the  piece  Housing  provide  comprised  of  a l l the  together  with  not  more  Governor.  Under  the  terms  land  and  In  1959,  relieving  the  tenements, Government with  a  Low  Cost  Public  and  the  Works  Therefore, with  two  housing,  which  was  for those  homeless built  by  Housing income  fires;  the  Housing  people  goals  by  given  powers  public  the  by a  to  was  the wide  develop  progress  housing,  program  by  types -  was  A u t h o r i t y or  of  nominated  was  in  private i . e . the  for  authority  people tenents.  one  the  Housing  of  low-income  was  the  hasitily  better  housing.  the  The  in  large  those  made  public  Government  accommodations problem  public  resettlement  or  self-contained under  Authority.  erected  squatter clearance  other  in  Council,  unsatifactory  housing  accommodation  supplying  i n need  the  living  buildings.  This  managed  social  the  of  Housing  Authority  i t was  well  a  in  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n  three  affected  by  Scheme,  was  were  basic  as  clearing  type  than  e s t a t e s were  there  housing  and  Scheme.  lower  Department  Ordinance,  the  passed  Urban  disappointed with  third  Housing  income  completed  numbers  the  the  persons  residential  problem  commenced  three  housing,  government,  housing  family  The  improve  of  The  by  1978).  families  tenements.  members  the  (Morris,  established  low-income  than  build  i t s entirety  legislation  which  in private  to  and  the  for  of  in  Secretariat  housing  ex-officio  authority acquire  of  housing  conditions  of  retained  Ordinance  overcrowded  range  was  Government  major  the  Authority  which  to  with  housing  Low  Cost  other  low-  the  early  48  pattern  of  involved 1964,  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was  in public a  Working  investigate  Board  review  the  departments 1965,  to  concerned. the  private,  future  for  for public from to  body,  the  overall  administration gap  public  housing  was  housing  public  Public  Department,  Works  Authority of  tremendous of  later  the  (while  the  separate  resettlement  for  the  a l l  the  proposal, with  scope  and the  public of  the  In  i t s eight  years  Board  made many  policy  the  i t was  policy The  a  for  in the  major  in  had  the was of  managing  and  domain  the  function  as  of of  the  ( i i ) the  bodies  particularly  similar  with  design  Department);  management  an  for  ( i ) there and  and  of i t s  and  problems  planning  lay  was  only  organization that  M o r r i s , were: the  levels,  implementation  program.  Resettlement  e s t a t e s was  to  1978).  single  public,  a  rent  former  two  of  and  effort,  and  responsibility  the  by  to  as  for  and  confusion  housing  housing  latter  In  matters  for  to  policy  the  Nevertheless,  for  the  establishment  policy  size  Housing  no  responsibility  them  existance  still  according  maintaining  Housing  the  the  the  them.  government  established  (Morris  housing  e s t a t e s and  the  accepted  the  such  among  a l l housing  total  on  accountable  system,  between  the  government.  There  the  on  was  on  responsibility  implementing  a  and  by  approved  government  the  cooperation  government  1965-1973,  not  recommendations.  of  Board  housing  recommendations advisory  The  w e r e many o r g a n i z a t i o n s  recommended  surveying  advising  existence  little  government  Housing  public  eligibilty of  problems,  advise  there  appointed  implementation  responsibility and  but  Party,  housing  Housing  in  housing  that  the  standard  caused design to  low  49  cost  housing;  program  required  (Morris,  In year  and  ( i i i )  pooling  housing  1972,  program  homes  environment,  the  for  involved over  the  the  with  self-contained  people  large  size  the  limited  of  the  public  professional  housing resources  1978).  October,  program  of  the  Governor  the  with  building  next  creation  of  new  necessary  support:  ten  target good  majority  of  Hong of  Kong  amenities  the  The  people  to  in  a  Kong.  for  some  1.8  give  ten  reasonable  Hong  also  a  permanent,  of  Governor  organization  annouced  providing  accommodation  years.  housing  of  This  million  annouced the  the  program  the  "What we p r o p o s e i s t o v e s t i n a s i n g l e b o d y t h e p o w e r s and f u n c t i o n s that are at present fragmented, that i s to say those of theHousing Board; those of the Urban C o u n c i l and the Commissioner f o r R e s e t t l e m e n t under the Resettlement Ordinance and those of the H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y under the H o u s i n g O r d i n a n c e . We p r o p o s e t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h t h i s s i n g l e b o d y a u n i f i e d Housing Department. This will be responsible for the planning, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n ... o f a l l p u b l i c h o u s i n g i n t h e C o l o n y and a l s o f o r a l l t h e d u t i e s f o r m e r l y c a r r i e d out by the R e s e t t l e m e n t Department and the s t a f f of the H o u s i n g Authority", ( s p e e c h by t h e G o v e r n o r o f H o n g K o n g , S i r C r a w f o r d M. Maclehose, t o t h e L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l on O c t o b e r 18, 1972).  There  were  administration  i n Hong  administration departments programs. Housing  of  to A  public  number  responsibility  of  headed for  1973,  other  Kong  achieve  Branch  Since  also  policy  public  which  important had  housing. greater new  by and  One  were  in  the in  created,  the  in  public  influence  involved  Secretary  programs  housing  great  coordination  branches the  a  changes  for  the  grouping  of  government including  Housing  housing  administration  on  a  with  field.  i n Hong  Kong  has  50  been  under  one  single  Authority.  It  is a  all  of  public  aspects  include:  (i)  matters;  (ii)  classes  of  the  Governor;  areas, the  of  Hong  rehousing  on  Housing for  and  clearance the  Authority  planning,  sale has  emergiencies;  and  development  financed  initially  sold  families within  by  to  the  control  the  and  of  managing  certain  income  the  approved  Cottage  throughout  eligibility  for  as  agent  for  addition,  the  responsibilitiy Ownership  flats  individual flats  limits  by  on  In  the  for  Governor  acts  Home  where  policy  estates  centres  land.  undertaken  government  housing  and  and  (v)  Authority  estates,  advises  and  1977  the  authority  Housing  coordinating  housing  Transit  (iv)  Kong  for  of  housing  and  squatter  since  Hong  a l l public  the  public Areas  building, by  on  public  by  Kong;  the  functions  builds  to  -  responsible  Governor  Housing  pertaining  in  The  recommended  policies  Crown  the  ( i i i ) manages  Temporary  body  housing.  plans  territory  the  statutory  advises  people  organization  on  terms  are  approved  government.  The  Authority  Secretary  for  committees  Housing  which  concerning  finance,  operations  and  representing members  from  meets to  have  wide  review  under  the  work  of  the  delegated  powers  building, estate  appeals. a  quarterly  The  spectrum  Government  the  departments  the to  six  deal  management,  Authority of  chairmanship  comprises  community, directly  and  the  standing  with  home  of  matters  ownership, 14  members  six  official  involved  in  housing  to  decide  matters.  The  b u i l d i n g Committee  holds  monthly  meetings  51  upon  the selection, planning  construction building  The the  of  and layout  buildings  and  the design  acceptance  and  of tenders f o r  works.  Finance  Committee  meets  annual  income,  expenditure  Authority.  I t also  co-ordinates  aspects  the  of s i t e s ,  of  the  policies  once  every  and c a p i t a l and  quarter budget  advises  formulated  of t h e Housing  on  by o t h e r  and examines  the  financial  committees  of the  Authority.  The for  Management  overseeing  policies  repairs  methods  the  Transit  estates  i s  responsible  and c o n s i d e r i n g  and  estate  tenancy  maitenance,  of land  required  of squatting;  to squatter  Centres;  i s responsible  areas;  f o rpolicy for  planning  management  and a l l o c a t i o n  matters  redevelopment,  and c o - o r d i n a t i o n of  Cottage  of temporary  Areas  and permanent  housing.  Appeals  Housing  termination  The making  Committee  and c o n t r o l  improvements  The  and  the s e l e c t i o n of tenants,  collection,  to the clearance  prevention  public  of housing  for  of rent  operation  pertaining  and  standards  monthly  and s a n i t a t i o n .  The  of  meets  t h e management  and  conditions,  Committee  Committee  Ordinance of their  Home  t o hear tenancy  Ownership  recommendations  applicants  for  i s a statutory  flats  appeals  under  by  or the service  Committee on  body  new  established  tenants  under  against  of a notice  the  to quit.  c a r r i e s o u t i t s f u n c t i o n by eligibility  t h e Home O w n e r s h i p  criteria Scheme  and  for flat  52  prices.  In Public of  addition, Housing  housing  t h e Committee  was  s e t up  subsidy  The Department.  The  Administration,  The  i n October  for public  Excutive  arm  Department  Authority  is  of  of  accounts,  personal  training,  and  and  the planning,  ancillary  Housing office  consultants,  and c a r r i e s out r e s e a r c h  of  The E s t a t e  management  of  the  addition,  i t  also  properties  on b e h a l f  responsible affected  directs  magages  of land  and  victims  structures,  and redevelopment  resettlement  preparing  estates  planning  construction  of  tenants natural  built  briefs  of housing  The  i n 1950s.  social work  In  Scheme  and  The O p e r a t i o n s  Branch i s  rehousing  dilapidated  and a c q u i r i n g  control Mark  suitable  and temporary  f o r the  estates.  Ownership  It i s also  of  aspects  i s responsible  disasters,  and  of p u b l i c  the  f o r development,  These  Construction  and  housing  of  and  finance  technical  of the overcrowded  estates  staff  services,  the  Home  of the government.  buildings,  II  on  rental  the  Operation.  the  co-ordinates  Branch  Authority's  for clearance  squatters  and  Management  and  industrial  It  Housing branches:  and c o n s t r u c t i o n  commercial,  issue  Department.  research.  design  the  four  Management,  facilities.  housing.  also  into  co-ordinates  the  provision  housing  divided  Estate  include  handles  the  the  functions  Branch  to consider tenants.  Branch  functions  t o Tenants of  rental  is  Construction,  1984  Subsidy  housing  of  Administration  administrative  on H o u s i n g  tenement of  illegal  I and Mark  i n charge sites  housing  the  of  f o r the  areas.  53  SINGAPORE'S p o l i t i c a l of  parliamentary  Legislature, consists power  democracy.  the Judiciary  of  the  Bills  which  vested  i n t h e Supreme  is  of  President. the  The  Parliament  the  policy  Affairs,  Development,  review  i s based  The  Ministry  planning,  Its  housing,  middle  primary  production,  government  of  passing  in  Courts.  appointed  Health,  and  The  charge  Defence,  power i s  Affairs  of  Minister  responsible  Ministries  of  the Environment,  Affairs, and  with  the Prime M i n i s t e r  Education, Home  the  providing  Prime is  The which  by  of m i n i s t e r s charged  and comprises  National as  main  income  by  The  Labour,  Trade  Americana  and  Law,  Industry  1981;  Academic  1982).  of  Development  well  as  development  housing, parks  authority  implementation  is  The C a b i n e t  on E n c y c l o p e d i a  supervising  development.  and P a r l i a m e n t .  o u t by t h e C a b i n e t ,  guidance.  Social  Encyclopedia  Legislature  exercised  who  the Government.  Finance,  American  i s carried  model  p a r t s : the  The  Subordinate  i s a council  Culture,  (This  i s  the  Minister,  Communications,  National  Executive.  laws  and  ministers  Foreign  of three  of the Republic  t o the Parliament  fourteen  consists  f o r administering the country  directs  collectively and  Prime  with  effectively  Court  Cabinet  responsibility  on t h e B r i t i s h  t o by t h e P r e s i d e n t . J u d i c i a l  the Executive  c h a i r e d by t h e  It  t o make  are assented  i s based  and the  President  of the L e g i s l a t u r e  function  system  renewal,  recreation.  responsible  settlement  undertaking activities  urban  and  plans  i s responsible for  for  physical  cover  public  public  works,  It  is  the  formulation  at a l l levels.  sole and  The m i n i s t r y  54  has  a number  Singapore. out  by  Board  of departments The  policies  two s t a t u t o r y and the Urban  The  Housing  to control formulated  bodies,  and  Developemnt  Development  A c t . I t has been  Board  the  occured  change in  Since  and  Department  one  Executive and  then,  Officer:  Development  Resettlement  The  public  financial income  the Board  The Board and four  is  Development  statutory  body  Housing  and  i t has  six  the  Estates  three  direction  and  of  and  of  the  into  four  Divisions the  Division,  Lands  a  the  Building,  restructured  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Finance  of  departments:  structure  comprised  and  Initially,  Lands,  was  housing  comprised  members.  comprised  a l l under  and Finance Finance,  Department  is  personnel  and t r a i n i n g , relations.  policy,  and  when  Division,  a the  i n the administrative  Secretariat,  administration,  and  carried  Chief  Building  Division,  and  Department.  Secretariat  recruitment  is of  Resettlement,  Administration  departments:  and  responsible for public  then.  1973,  sections.  Board  enactment  Board  Finance,  A major  the  chairman,  under  Secretariat,  by  since  deputy  organization  Estates.  1960  facilities a  Housing  are  in  Redevelopment A u t h o r i t y .  in  chairman,  development  by t h e m i n i s t r y  i . e . the  established  anxiliary  and guide  and Systems  consists  responsible  administration  The  Finance control,  for  and  collections  three  union  staff matters,  i s i n charge  and and  The  general  including  Department records  of  and Research.  c o n d i t i o n s of s e r v i c e ,  budgetary  expenditure,  Division  accounts payments.  of of The  55  Systems and  and  Research  statistical  research,  of  information  organization  electronic Audit  data  which  Building  following  In  for  management  socio-economic  and  methods  addition,  is directly  and  surveys  studies,  there  responsible  and and  i s an  Internal  the  Chairman  to  for  and  long  short  including  housing  sites, and  housing,  facilities,  (i)  HDB  industrial  reclamation,  of  Estate Central  Management  and  Landscaping,  and  Land  for  the  Lettings,  following  Area  is also  responsible  including  sports  The  Division  Administration,  Reverted  Central  middle  buiding  and  other of  creational agency  housing,  functions housing  of  and the  estates,  materials.  Land and  Services,  Properties,  for  public  ( i i )  income  consists  Hawkers  E s s e n t i a l Maintenance  Legal, has  plants  Leases,  estates,  redevelopment  the  responsible urban  facilities;  projects.  and  is  and  areas,  land  housing  It  the  Engineering,  planning  projects,  including  sections:  Division  centres.  community  management  Security,  housing  and  repair  Division  of  Contracts,  Structural  The  social  include  The  of  and  b u i l d i n g programs,  rural  centres,  Government  Division  Survey.  towns,  supervision towns  projects,  and  new  consists  Administration  term  and  Division  Engineering,  Engineering,  design  Development  Civil  Electrical  and  systems  departments:  Architectural,  other  responsible  Board.  The  design  is  systems,  processing.  Department  the  Department  and  responsibilities:  of  the  following  Acquisition, Markets, Labour 24  Area  Car  and  Land Parks,  Welfare,  Offices.  management  of  The HDB  56  properties  and  reverted  management,  sale  industrial  premises,  car  park  rental  and  maintenance and  residents'  lands  of  enforcement,  legal  Resettlement  clearance  of  State  Lands  and  facilities,  airport  development,  works;  ( i i i )  development  of resettlement  the  Kong  assessment  above  and  and  shops and  and  markets, 24-hour  welfare  service,  services,  systems  responsibility  for a l l  planning,  finance,  management;  (ii)  organization  and  renewal,  industries,  reservoirs shops,  we  have  there  can  clearly  each  housing of  port  and  other  farmers  complex  and  housing. i s of  a  see well  They  and  and ( i v )  statutory  public  body  the  covers  a wide  government  body  have  the  which  has  a  and  structured  clearly  area,  to  including  allocation, has  has  both  established  housing,  construction,  component  that  both  ( i i i )the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the  goal  (i)  development,  g r a t i a compensation,  administrative  that  public  for  farms.  design,  for public  the p o l i c y  o f ex  aspects  this  such  responsibilities; authorities  (i)  for  roads,  for public  features:  responsible  of households,  review,  Singapore  administrative following  urban  ( i i ) relocation  industries;  is  required  housing,  with  centre  security  Department  public  Hong  of  landscaping,  labour  matters,  including  From  rental  o f hawker  service,  acquisition  committees.  The  public  land  flats,  management  management  essential estates  and  properties,  defined  administrative i n accordance  designate  public  57  housing  3.2  program  Finance  of  Finance program.  It  programs,  as  is  of  of  ( i i )  of  the  location  In the  Hong  above  housing  -  Authority, Cost  and  Government  Government received. subsidies. Government  of  any  public  housing  of  public  housing  success  finance indicates and  capital  of  is a  (iii) public of  the  major  investment  availability  between  1954  there  were  determines is  housing,  and  1972,  a  the  major  such  amenities,  socio-economic  social  determinent  finance  the  estates  housing  ways.  The  as  we  as  which  effects  kinds  of  provided provided  estates built public  by by  under  housing  have  the are  of  the the  the  the  capital  for Resettlement  Low-Cost  Housing  came  Housing  Authority  A l l three  Loan  types  capital  Low-Cost  of  Funds  was plus  public  allocation  Housing  was  a  former  were  Housing from  received  for Resettlement rather  Housing  than  Low-  financed estates  Government low-interest  self-finaneing  social  public  Government  f i n a n c e d by  housing  from  Resettlement  programs  directly  seen  low-income  The  Development  The  three  estates  Scheme. T h e s e  and  the  programs;  determining  housing  different  Revenue.  the  resettlement  in  of  attributes  and  review,  Housing  of  housing  strategy.  programs.  Kong  Department,  implementing  programs  scale  the  factors  for  source  housing  development  Programs  indication  the  sites  housing  i t s overall  Housing  ( i ) the  the  of  of  important public  an  public  determinent  of  essential  because  orientation  scale  part  Public  i s as  rents;  a  from  rents  government Housing an  and  economic  58  initiative.  Loans  to  the  Housing  market  rate  of  interest.  housing  received  government  by  the  government  Smith, the  1979,  rents  lower largest  Fong,  for  than  subsidies  rent  3.5%  of  per  reviews  substantial (Morris,  and  public  full  because  deficits  i t s rents  No  increases which  1973, by  public a  single  Authority.  The  clearance  and  squatter  control  Revenue  Hong  Kong.  Housing  a  Authority income  from  used  to  expenditures  on  meet new  met  by  1976,  a  ones. loans  and  The  land  was  that  substantially received a  40  the year  repayments  made  costs,  for  at  regular  resulting in  government  from  grant  government  -  Hong  the  Hong  the  on  grants  full  while  source Kong former  land  by to  Kong  for  from  any  General  Housing  surplus old  the  on  maintaining  massive The  be and  capital deficits  Estates  government. Authority  are  i s to  estates  Resettlement  the  National  the  and  government.  the  been  Authority'  Low-Cost  redeveloping  provided  provided  in  has  Expenditures  managing  rents  Hong the  ways.  met  Kong  Housing  Government  major  maitaining  deficiency  the  of  result  loan  by  in  of  are  and  from  managing  covered  public  Drakakis-  on  was  operating  Expenditures  entirely  in  including  number  met  is  based  than  (see  housing  reconstructed  in  investment  were  organization  financed  developing  flats  housing  are  former  in  were  activities  the  The  provision  of  allocation  1978).  were  costs,  types  value  resettlement  lower  p58).  administrated  of  market  housing  interest.  cover  a l l  through  Morris,  p r i c e s . The  carried a  addition,  subsidies  than  1980,  annum  to  Since  In  construction  1978,  Housing  less  these  market  amortization only  at  Authority  free,  are  After as  a  59  premium  for  applies  to  built and  low-income  since  sites  1973,  and  Government  Authority  in  lightened  the  the  is  3/4%  year 1978, for  at  S$910 public  The  charges. other  by  new  to  be  of  for  from  finance  of  which  principle estates  former  were  public  have  been  Resettlement  handed  policy  also  has  over  to  the  considerably  housing,  leaving  only  met.  two  i n t e r e s t to  housing by  land  burden  This  the  the  types  loans:  housing  finance  loan  government. of  public  construction  public  funds  were  a  for  The  of  public  Housing  60-year  loan  r e n t a l and  housing  for  allocated to  and at  a  10-  sale.  In  the  Board  housing.  The  income  decent  of  the  HDB  includes  administration,  miscellaneous  public  estates  loans  obtains  public  occupied  capital  million  tax,  providing of  6%  the  expenditure  property  land  to  housing.  which  The  1  costs  Board  interest loan  to  financial  met  Development 7  1973.  Singapore,  housing  on  Low-Income  construction  In  1  the  public  is  from  housing  housing  is  for  maintenance  rent,  income.  service  Due the  fixed  repayments  to  the  charges,  a  interest  people,  sub-economic  loans,  conservancy  government's  low-income at  and  of  policy  the  level,  and of  rental and  the  Since 1973, the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of p u b l i c housing in Hong Kong has been under one single organization, i . e . t h e Hong Kong Housing Authority. Accordingly, a l l three types of public h o u s i n g b u i l t b e t w e e n 1954 and 1973 by t h e p r e v i o u s t h r e e bodies were handed over to the n e w l y e s t a b l i s h e d Hong Kong H o u s i n g Authority.  60  selling  prices  of  Board's  annual  e x p e n d i t u r e has  recurrent  deficits  following Main  year  S$30 m i l l i o n  million  (Sicat,  Another the  put and  scale  flats  are  fully  through  E s t i m a t e s . The  1971,  is  the  1979,  1973, and  important of  by  provision deficit  and  1978,  Report  of  Both  capital  the  Hong  the  result  income.  i n the S$10  figure  in  the The the  Republic's million  rose  to  in S$59  1978-1979).  finance Kong  into  a  government  was  the  As  its  made  annual in  cost.  exceeded  subsidised  feature  amount  below  always  Annual  investment.  considerable  also  annual  Board's in  are  of  and  public  public  housing  Singapore  housing  (table  have 3.1  3.2).  Table  3.1  P u b l i c Housing Investment i n Hong (at 1978 m a r k e t p r i c e s HK$M.)  Year  Public Residential Buildings  1961 1 962 1963 1 964 1965 1966 1 967 1 968 1969 1970 1971 1 972 1 973 1 974  52 74 1 24 1 35 129 125 120 101 91 1 04 1 12 90 1 17 313  Source:  Morris,  1978,  Percentage of Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation 4.0 4.3 5.5 5. 1 4.3 4.9 5.6 5.1 3.7 2.9 2.3 1 .7 1.8 4.3  p68.  Kong  Percentage of GDP 0.9 1. 1 1 .6 1 .5 1 .2 1. 1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.9  61  Table  3.2  Public  1960 1 961 1962 1963 1 964 1965 1 966 1 967 1968 1969  above  review  considerable programs  to  different extents,  effort ensure  types  lower  We  than  now  subsidies  the  how of  regulations public  subsidized  that  the s o c i a l  both  sale  prices  91 .1 1 36.4 242.7 436.2 475 648 765 n .a. 91 1  1975;  Singapore  governments  low- income  nature  housing  the  of public  are  HDB  have  put  public  housing  housing.  Although  subsidized  of a l l  different  government  interested  income  Ngiap,  financing  provided:  offer  distribution  in  and  know  the  governments  C a p i t a l Investment i n Public Housing (S$M.)  to  the public  different  housing  flats  actual costs.  are  Singapore  shows  of p u b l i c  rentals  Singapore  1 970 1 971 1 972 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79  C h u a Wee M e n g a n d Ho K o o n Annual R e p o r t 1973-1979.  The  in  Year  10.0 30.2 40.5 50.8 35.3 31 .9 50.4 59.4 72.2 71.9  Sources:  are  Investment  C a p i t a l Investment i n Public H o u s i n g (S$M.)  Year  are  Housing  low  in  Hong  Kong  covers  interest  the public the  ways  housing?  Who  housing  are  flats?  by  t h e government free  and  housing.  housing  of  What the  eligible  in both  Next  guides  flats.  orientation the persons  land;  grants,  administration  public  the s o c i a l  is  for public  housing  to ensure  public  i t  deficits  loans  subsidized  i n which  we the are  low-  f o r the  62  3.3  The  Distribution  The  focus  of  of  Public  discussion  distribution  or  it  administrative  i s on  the  beneficiaries  In of  of  Hong  the  on  the  the  Kong,  before  types  (Drakakis-Smith,  1979):  The displaced made  from  land  by  the  homeless  compassionate disasters.  welfare  For  this  not  used  in  such  1973,  the  public  of  process,  which  of  rather,  determine  f o r the  housing  were  was  and  a  process  criteria  built for  demolition  cases,  the  the  programs.  required  type  on  regulations  Housing  Crown  Flats  is  housing  of  Resettlement  here  methods  public  various  Housing  to  as  follows  resettle  families  development,  of  dangerous  certain  public  allocation  buildings,  victims  housing  there  families  of  were  natural no  income  criteria.  The living of  Government  i n overcrowded  income  families  limit,  earning  simplest income  Low-Cost  form  group  and the  less of  and  Housing  sub-standard original  than  upper  made  was  per the  limit  f o r low-income  accommodation.  goal  HK$300  building the  was  to  rents  was  In  build  month, too  families  but  flats  for  even  the  for  this  high  therefore,  terms  raised  to  families  of  HKS500.  The moderate  Housing means  accommodation. HK$500  and  Authority living  These  HK$900 a  in  families  month.  built  housing  overcrowded were  to  for and  have  an  sub-standard income  between  63  For  the  housing  Authority  after  household  income  1973,  for ten  or  feet  person.  The  for  public  by  the  the  (HK$2,000  HK$2,850 per  built  Hong  eligibility  a  month  more) and  a  following  for  is a  was  used  1.  V i c t i m s of  fires  and  natural  2.  Compassionate  cases,  3.  Ex-tenants  dangerous  4.  Development  5.  Urban  6.  Redevelopment  7.  Re-use  of  8.  Relief  of  9.  Waiting  or  area  three  of  35  eligibility  (Fong,  low to  square  criteria  1980):  disasters,  buildings,  conversion, housing  areas,  applicants,  Junior c i v i l  11.  Miscellaneous.  servants,  huts  affected  development  clearance areas  if  concerned  huts  of  a  overcrowding,  10.  the  1979  are  Scheme,  temporary  list  of  of  Housing  clearances,  Renewal  Occupants  in  family  living  list  which  National  criteria  a  maximum  housing  of  Kong  were  are  by  natural  eligible  recorded  disasters  for public  i n the  1964  or  housing  squatter  in  only  control  survey.  In also  Singapore,  allocated  criteria citizen than  to  the the  public  low-income  for allocation over  five  21  years  persons,  housing  of  were: age,  including  group.  "an and  flats In  built the  applicant have  a  himself";  and  early  must  family  by  be  unit "the  HDB  period, a of  are the  Singapore not  less  applicant's  64  income must  must  not  not exceed  room  units  three  persons  In Under  S$800  i s open  HDB  flats  not  more  a n d an income  a r e that than  ceiling  with  not exceeding  the basic  the  criteria  the applicant's and that  i s n o t more  was r a i s e d  for  a family  initiated  S$800  family  p.m. a n d t h e t o t a l  Registration  t o those  sheme,  applicant's  S$500  p.m.".  1964, t h e B o a r d this  income  exceed  from  family  the  unit  Board's  than  S$250 p e r month.  Home  Ownership  f o ra person  the total  monthly  S$1,000.  S$1,000  one  of not less  Sheme.  t o purchase  i n d i v i d u a l monthly  than  income  income  income  i s  of the  I n 1969, t h e f a m i l y  p e r month  t o S$1,200  per  month.  In  August  applicant's for  family  renting  individual  As and  income  Singapore,  for  the  i n both  achieving  low-income  ensured housing  administration  to 2 persons. remained  discussion  public  housing  Kong  the  the policy  which  Nevertheless, and finance  The  was  on  goal  of  also  guides i t  limits  administration  i n Hong  Kong a n d  public  housing  provides a  sound  promising  for  goal  housing to  seems  further  the a l l o c a t i o n of public  has  i s not the  the  1 9 7 8 , when t h e  of providing  a policy  of  income  the  programs  i s  size  removed.  and Singapore  finance  f a m i l i e s ; and such  the  until  the organization  Hong  by t h e r e g u l a t i o n s flats.  on  o f $500 p e r m o n t h  say that,  efficiency;  succussfully  requirment  flats  to this  the  we may  administration  housing  limit  a conclusion of  the  was r e d u c e d  public  finance  basis  1967,  to  only  be  emphasized  factor  that  determining  65  the  socio-economic  are  a  number  of  reasons  administration other  For  a  is  what  not  result  housing  to  poorest  of the  remotely we  success and of  of  or  explore  the  Singapore, public  are  the  public  people  to  expensive other  of  Secondly,  to  not  give  up  although there  are  programs,  public final  necessary  employment their  housing  rent,  allocate  beneficiaries  distance to  a l l ,  There  c o n s t r u c t i o n , management.  the  the  of  housing  also  does  housing.  importance,  affordability  group  among  low-income  mean  which public  that  because and  chances  other  rents, to  the  live  may in  public  housing  estates. Therefore,  important  factors  contributing  public  in particular,  housing.  of  public  First  critical  design,  factors.  especially  located to  success  this.  s u b s i d i e s but  low-income  low-income  have  the  low-income  i s of  planning,  various  people  the  the  decides  only  considerations, force  of  of  for saying  finance  physical  example,  flats is  and  determinents  including  effects  housing the  programs  physical  in  planning  to  Hong and  the Kong  design  66  CHAPTER  4. P L A N N I N G  AND D E S I G N  P U B L I C HOUSING  4.1  The F u n c t i o n  This  of Planning  topic  planning  and  i s  government  housing  programs.  Previous  Singapore.  The most  and  that  of and  effective  social  public  promising programs  of which social  the central  planners  and a r c h i t e c t s  provided,  t o achieve  satisfy  architects  is  shelter  to  i s a basic  i s essential to  and  o f t h e poor on t h e u s e  industrialisation Singapore. housing  The  have s e t  goals  of the housing  give  full  through  play  providing  households.  What  economic  of the poor,  t h e term  human  to l i f e . the  Kong  to well  should  resources  goals?  needs  understand  Hong  of  needs  and  the limited  policy  potential  housing can  public  development  housing  contribute  i s  housing  public  the  Kong  that  implementing  t o economize  t o both  do, w i t h  first  housing  to  strategy  Hong  in  housing  f o r low-income  these  the  should  level,  seen  housing  the  i s that  basic  theme  and economic  public  private  finding  of  assumption  public  programs  f o r the socio-economic  planned  SINGAPORE  towards  shown  and f i n a n c e of low-income  guidelines  potential  step  has  i scritical  the  low-income  housing  important  development  administration  one  and  way t o s a t i s f y  land, which  on  a critical  i t c a n be a n e f f i c i e n t  urban  To  here  analysis  low-income  an  are  KONG AND  and Design  policy  developing  be  I N HONG  discussed  design  OF T H E LOW-INCOME  need;  "housing a secure  At another  p l a n n e r s and needs".  and sanitary  level,  self-realization  At  housing  and o v e r a l l  67  development  of  and  relations.  social  a  person's  Therefore,  carefully  consider  including  affordability,  a  wide  and  access.  Because  Hong  Kong  Singapore,  and  housing  program  housing  shortage  Housing As of  an  conflicts  have  i s so  housing  the  the  and  also  a  while  low-income  land  housing  the  essential which  demand  through  public  housing  should  housing,  of  the  i n Hong  important  of  amenities,  location  shortage  for a  in  successful  enables  the  physical  manufacturing  i s , an  architects  social  conflict  p o p u l a t i o n have  urban  still  of  i t may  the  activities  overall  quickly.  component use,  and  attributes  scale  often occurred  growing on  of  especially  limited  economizing was,  land  sectors,  and  alleviated  major  important  other  space  is a  of  severity  i t was  be be  range  the  socio-economic  planners  physical  of  to to  abilities,  with  the  and  commerce.  Such  Singapore  where  Kong  for  and  land  both  for  been  improved  environment. development  industry,  great.  planning  objective  f o r the  programs  in  and  Therefore, and  design  designers  Hong  of  Kong  and  design  has  Singapore.  No been  doubt  enormous.  located, to  potential Hong  capital both  difficulty It  equipped  employment  both  the  to  with  and pay  Kong  is  costly basic  social  resources  urban-states  while  offer  further  and  has  limited.  the  that  land  is  easy  low-income  government  Moreover, a  and  housing  the  i s extremely  limited.  presents  build  infrastructure,  Singapore  are  to  services,  for housing and  involved in planning  Even  well  access  people's though  subsidies,  the  shortage  in  c h a l l e n g e . What  have  the  68  planners  and a r c h i t e c t s  economic  resources  housing  to  bridge  and the ambitious  the  policy  gap  goals  between  the  of the public  programs?  There and  done  have  Singapore  housing:  i n planning  ( i i )high-rise  expansion  standards discuss  four  measures  and d e s i g n i n g  their  used  ways  housing  public in  housing.  which  of the p h y s i c a l  program;  these  planning  Kong  public  public  housing  housing; ( i i i )  and ( i v ) low d e s i g n  The  following  measures  and  i n Hong  respective  and h i g h - d e n s i t y p u b l i c  of public  f o rpublic the  success  essentially  ( i ) s q u a t t e r c l e a r a n c e and complementary  programs; spatial  been  sections  contribute tothe  design  of  the  housing  programs.  4.2  Squatter  Clearance  HONG KONG world. 11,582  The Mong  i s one o f t h e most  I n 1978, t h e o v e r a l l people  density New  and Complementary  per square  Kowloon,  and Tsuen  d e n s i t y o f t h e most Kok  probably  was  the highest  percentage  of  development, obviously  The  over  densely  areas  (Hong  populated  people  in  world  the  area  Kong  of the land  located  and  Kong  the was  that the Kowloon, mile.  in  Kowloon-  mile,  which i s  1980).  hilly  in  per square  square  (Fong,  i s  showed  district  per  Program  areas  Island,  people  urban  413,000  the value  populated  T h e 1976 B y - C e n s u s  Wan) was 6 4 , 5 3 2  i t s land  Housing  p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y o f Hong  mile  of the metropolitan  Public  As  a  unsuitable  i n t h e urban  high for  areas i s  high.  high  price  of urban  land,  together  with  the  serious  69  housing of  the  19th of  shortage, squatter  century. this  has  problem  However,  problem  government  began  to  areas  rehousing  achieved  situation  (Fong,  land  only  settlements.  goes  since  unmanageable,  employ  back 1949  and  as  The far  that  the  i t was  little  success  in  as  then  that to  clearance  improving  the  magnitude  some p r e v e n t a t i v e m e a s u r e s Nevertheless,  history  the  clear without  the  overall  1980).  the  has  land  development  uses.  The  been  squatter  most  i t was  Kong  for development.  1954,  shortage  squatter  i n Hong  become  squatter  Since  caused  response  been to  to  of  pursue  provide  important  the a  more  sites  measure  clearance  Hong  and  Kong  comprehensive  for housing  applied for the  government  and  this  complementary  to  the  program other  urban  purpose public  of  has  housing  programs.  In was  the  widely  4.1).  early  squatter  of  squatters  unleased was  development. sites  a  anticipating blocked  the  the  squatter  land  settlements Crown which  Many  the  hill  Land. was  slopes  the land  overall  good  view  of  of  i n the land  squatter  shortage  Most  the  by  blocks harbour. these  i n Hong  Hong  contradicted Kong  and  forms were  sites Kong  squatter The  (figure  occupied  other  these  As  Kong  considerable  squatters  as  Hong  areas  areas  for  development.  areas  urban  of  occupied  of  occupied  the  economic  existing  suitable  industrialization, path  population  illegally  for multi-storey residential  commanded  of  the  s c a t t e r e d throughout  These  amount  1950s,  under the  aggravated  by of  ideal often  was  then  settlements utilization reality  of  conflicts  Figure Source:  4.1  - Squatter  Areas  Drakakis-Smith,  i n Hong  (1979).  Kong,  1955.  71  over and  land  use. Moreover,  environment  security. goal  public  housing  The  alleviate other of  land  for  and  component period  This  to  remain  squatter were  the  and  land  housing  to  a n d 1954  to  build  and  use between efficiency  other  purposes, was d o n e to  initiated  Program,  and  i n the use such  as  by u s i n g  high  squatter  f o r other  was  program  motive t o  replace  land  the  housing  greater  blocks  created  reorganize  government  of the c l e a r e d  public  structures  erected  involved  rehousing  "frozen"  structures.  part  1953  the  services. This  resettlement  land,  the  the  i n Hong  uses.  dominant  Kong  i n the  1954 t o 1 9 7 3 .  approach  clearance,  and  of the Resettlement  of  from  through  social  leaving  approach,  over  h e a l t h and  to achieve  the opportunity  was  social  settlements.  government  It  housing  and  i n order  in  many  to public  squatter  took  conflicts  multi-storey  houses, This  Program.  both  threats  fires  Kong  of development  manufacturing density  squatter  the severe  forms  to replace  The government  Resettlement  were  caused  on t h e u s e o f u r b a n  f o r t h e Hong  land.  settlements  i t was n e c e s s a r y ,  estates  continued  squatted  They  of economizing  opportunities  the  problems.  Therefore,  policy  squatter  as from were  before  They  were  undisturbed  until  development,  a t which  a comprehensive of squatters. August  permited.  August  they time  had  A l l squatter  Squatter  control,  areas  structures  designated  marked to  of  were  1954, i . e . no u n a u t h o r i s e d  1954 w e r e  specially  policy  and  the occupants  were  which  as " t o l e r a t e d "  allowed  be d e m o l i s h e d  new  to  remain  t o make  way f o r  rehoused  (Fong,  72  1980). areas for  This were  was  an  under  government  development,  arranging eligible  persons.  often  land  was  new  the  areas.  industrial for  use  land  public  other  a  cleared  housing  at  replace"  1980,  a  the  density density,  of  of  the  much  higher  area was  the  was  required  rehousing  for  purpose  the  of  the  for  of  the  an  area  f o r which  clearance  appeared  1956  auction and or  1979).  public  squatter  responsible  and  the  of  the  availability  on  Drakakis-Smith,  road  that  of  squatters.  construction  low-income  and  sales, the  Such  a  was  about  42  than  percent  the  was  used  pattern  "provide  for  percent  schemes,  new  of  used  was  resettlement to  previously  27  1964  remainder  housing  densities  over  drainage  of  the  for  and  other  of  land  estates  and  residential  squatter  areas  they  1975).  The  major  2.43  has  estates, as  an  a f f e c t e d and  between and  of  (Dwyer,  also  to  ensure  for clearance  to  these  use  (Drakakis-Smith,  SINGAPORE. is  such  result  forms  units  land  development  works  was  squatters  According  infrastructures, public  of  timing  required  for  When  structures  and  time  to  Department  reference  accommodation  squatter  used  of  pattern  control.  a l l  with the  number  alternative  squatted  of  Priority  required;  measure  Resettlement  decided  the  A  the  clearance  was  land;  essential  shortage  constraint  million  3907 p e r s o n s although  of  land  on  the  population per  slightly  lower  to  development  of  square  relative  this  of  that  This of  population  Singapore.  urban-state  kilometers. than  the  Hong  lived  at  In a  population Kong,  was  73  much h i g h e r (Liu,  et  than  a l ,  very  In  is therefore  the  serious  housing The  densities  in other  Southest  Asian  countries  1983).  Singapore problem.  the  late in  shortage  and  Singapore and  government  development  1950s  similar  the  early  Hong  1960s,  because  squatter  recognized  and  to  the  Kong the  there  need  land  was  settlements  these  in  land  problem  an  were  was  increasing increasing.  constraints and  its  on  economic  opportunities  for  industrialization.  The public  establishment  housing  government the of  land  uses.  major  construction achieve  a  between  two to  resettled before  in  urban  used  scale  sites  land  both has  of  both  housing  purpose  a  The been  squatter and  positive  i n Hong  and  has  its efforts  urban  been  the  estates  to  difference  Singapore  settlements urban  program  also  major that  Kong,  other  p u b l i c housing  has  concentrated  As  low-income  comprehensive  use.  resettlement  and  uses slum  renewal  programs,  more  clearance  on  squatters.  in Singapore  redevelopment and  a  for  low-income  of  problem.  pursued  for this  of  consequent  beginning  land  urban-states  replace  the  the  the  provide  acceptable  relocation  and  has  efficiency  Kong  policy  to  large  resettlement  The  towards  Singapore  through  Hong  HDB  marked  measure  higher  housing  whereas  for  of  these  buildings  and  of  development The  public  program  attitude  government  of  was  that  the  accommodation could  compensation  take of  occupants of  place. those  one  had  form  Practical  affected  by  or  to  be  another policies  clearance  74  are  implemented.  rehoused  i n HDB  There land  Most  persons  flats  i s  no  under  data  u s e on t h e f o r m e r  squatter  sufficient  is  various  for  industrial  regarding  settlements  evidence  purposes,  development,  by c l e a r a n c e  s p e c i a l arrangments  available  nevertheless, used  affected  schemes  (Wan,  t h e new  or slums.  t o show  that  including  infrastructure,  are  1975).  pattern  of  There  i s ,  the cleared  land  public  housing,  and leases  to private  developers.  From  the  development two  above  of  discussion  large  scale  we  low-income  c i t y - s t a t e s , e s p e c i a l l y Hong  Kong  contribution  to industrialization  in  squatter  the former  development has  really  housing not  of public  such  developing  itself.  land  in  clear  and Singapore?  The  findings  are quite  f o r the re-use  required  alternative  significant  assess  successful over  squatter  obtain areas  but  do  Has t h e s i t u a t i o n been  housing  areas  f o r the squatters  Kong,  was u s u a l l y  estates  which  cleared.  whether or of  housing  governments i n  urban  p o s i t i v e . I n Hong  the  use between  a t the expense  to  use  and whether i t  land  that  land  whether  t o examine  unusual  of squatter  f o r Government housing  not  order  a l t e r n a t i v e housing.  Kong  priority  is  a  the  i n these  reorganizing  i t i s important made  that  housing  made  to  conflicts  has been  It  countries,  industrialisation,  Hong  has been  a contribution  development  adequate  housing  sectors,  public  through  However,  the  conclude  has  areas.  alleviated  and other  can  The  land  for  not  offer  avoided  the  highest  given  would  in  to  provide  resettlement  75  estates main  built  between  metropolitan  opportunities number the  of  the  million 1978), A  Public  scarce put  land  should  to know  used  is  in early  economic  next to  housing  locations  i t s array  near  of  employment  The  fact  that  in a  short  time  In  1969,  program,  a  a  large  indicates  fifteen total  i n Resttlement  the  years  of  one  Housing  (Wong,  i n c r e a s e i n the housing  stock.  observed  in  housed  in  Singapore, public  where  housing  the  estates  1980s.  replacing use  squatter  settlements  planning possible,  resource  i t s  with  rehoused  substantial  population  housing  better  been  accommodated  situation  t o 75%  in  facilities.  the p u b l i c  were  of  1964. w e r e  resettlement program.  representing a  reached  been  of  to  of Kowloon  service  the  people  proportion  be  of  start  similar  made  area  s q u a t t e r s have  success  after  and  1954  i n both  optimal a r e how  use  the  Kong  and  f o r the e n t i r e  other  achieve  Hong  so t h a t  planning policy  and  slums  land, a  Singapore, community.  design  goals  and  in  very could  What  measures  Hong  Kong  we  have and  Singapore.  4.3  Hiqh-Rise  To it are the  and  achieve  is essential used  High-Density  the p o l i c y that  appropriately.  reorganization  reduced  the  the  discussed  land the  of  Public  goals  limited As  we  land  resource  importance  f o r low-income resources  have  use  seen  i n the  available of  Housing  of  housing,  and  capital  i n the p r e v i o u s  section,  former  land  squatter areas  f o r housing.  investment  public  We  in industry  have seen  by  has also most  76  developing it,  the  would  countries. amount  n o t have  housing,  most  available  capital  f o rhousing  going  possible  to achieve  i fspecial  measures  had n o t been  of  the  h a s been  public  used  housing  i n Hong  Kong  to  investment  i s limited.  been  planning which  With  Therefore, i t  satisfactory taken  progress i n  i n the  physical  e s t a t e s . One e s s e n t i a l and Singapore  in  measure  i s high-rise  and  high-density.  Hong  HONG KONG.  The  hillsides  Kong  and  Kowloon  Island  psychological  barrier  Before  t h e new t o w n  early  1970s,  for  resettlement  providing (Will,  could  planning  before  housing  program,  density  one  Hong  Kong.  became  there and  partly  small very  i n the f i r s t  the start  at  and  belief  a  two  space a  popular  cottages  among  i n the available that  the  i f the original while  i n t h e same  areas  constraint  on  decades.  been  scale some  housing  Kong  and  public  that  low  unrealistic  for  Settlers' started  i n approved  squatters  low-income  evidence  was  f i n a n c e d by Government,  stone  Kong.  density,  severe  of the large  had a l r e a d y  only  higher  open  became  two-storey  initiated  and  feasible  and  o f Hong  squatter areas,  I n 1952, t h e n o n - p r o f i t Hong  Corporation, selling  a  physical  expansion was  that  a  space  be accommodated  Such  both  the only  be  services  been  program  felt  would  the metropolitan areas of  spatial  was t h e e x i s t i n g  roads,  Even  the  development  program  1978).  physical  had  t h e government  development  inhabitants  to  behind  areas.  Housing  b u i l d i n g and These  non-squatters  houses alike.  77  However,  i t was  as  land  very  Hong  Kong  in  considerable of  which  very  type  amount Kong  of  first  fire  public  victims,  but  used,  built  for  emergency  a  although  available density  regarding  was  obviously  adopted  were  a  The  child.  densities  high  24 flat  (figure  resettlement density  only  has  building remained  long  again  of  housing  a l l have  period  as  well  squatters  in  required  of  rehouse  time,  both  a  neither  the  of  of  high.  square  feet  The per  d e n s i t i e s were 4.2). have high  Although been and  block  an  "H", there  compounded  height  the  i s no  data  estates,  of  by  high  since  the  standards  half  different  has  with  space  and  introduced the  concrete  resettlement  initial  six  Mei  also  resettlement  adult  Kip  of  were  Although the  design  Shek  housing  each  health.  the  reinforced  two-storey  form  for  the  Basically,  density  very  considered  to  some  for the  a  would  multi-storey  relief.  requirements  housing  estates  six-storey building in  minimum  type  afford.  finally  were  this  accommodate  and  once  housing  blocks  was  land  was  build  To of  could  Single-storey the  to  consuming. this  Hong  slow  this  ground  types 1954,  increased  for  of the  (table  Roof p l a y g r o u n d .  - C o v e r e d area  Bearing wails Partition w a l l s s,  *3  Balcony.  s  3C  DC  DC  DC  \ I I  DC  DC  DC  IE  r~  PO  50  ROAD  ON  SHUN  NING  3C  IJl  I R0«0  1  Figure  4.2 - Resettlement the  Source:  i Mark I resettlement J blocks  Shek  r  —  Blocks f o r  K i p Mei  Drakakis-Smith,  g  Fire  (1979).  Victims.  100 I  79  Table  4.1  Year  Mark Mark Mark Mark Mark Mark  Sources:  Will,  There  formation  I II III IV V VI  two  standards  than  located  SINGAPORE, space  like  liberally.  residential 1,000  population,  population  as  High-rise housing public  housing  their  been used  which  since  estates  Housing Estates.  relatively  estates,  a s an  they  higher  also  feature.  1973,  had  High-rise  essential feature  after  could  instance,  i s set at a  has been  had  before  the  Housing  physical  built  Kong,  is  recommendated  estates  housing  housing  including  for those  towns.  Hong  For  layouts  as  estates  i n the s a t e l l i t e  Adult  i n 1973:  Low-Cost  the resettlement  housing  per  of p u b l i c  Authority  public  and h i g h - d e n s i t y  public  types  Housing  of  has a l s o  Space  Kong  1980.  Government  types  high-density  the  and  i n Hong  24 ( s q . f t . ) 24 24-26 24-26 (self-contained) 27-35 (self-contained) 35 (self-contained)  major  o f t h e new  these  high-rise  Fong,  Estates  Floor  6-7 7-8 8 16 n.a. n.a.  other  Estates  Although design  Stories  1978;  were  Authority  and  of Resettlement  Type  1954-61 1961-64 1964- 67 1965- 69 1966- 71 1970-  the  Features  the the built  not  afford  the provision  standard much  lower  in English  major  form  were  1  7 acres  (Varma,  of  design  o f t h e HDB. 4 to  allocate  of open  about  than  towns  formation i n 1960  of  to  12  space i n acre per  per 1,000  1979).  of  public  Most  of the  stories  (HDB  80  Annual  12  Report,  The  height  stories  for  (Liu,  1975,  dwelling persons 370  slab &  units per  persons  blocks  a l , 1983).  and  Hong  Kong  which  means  and be  high-rise  build  to  and for  the  development  blocks  with  is a  25  net  was  on  1979)  the  satellite 20-  to  240  to  the  problem  for point  blocks  is  density  towns  takes  persons  440  about  average  25-storey  440  and  around  an  residential  1  usually  density  Tan,  and  emphasized.  stories  overall  common  Singapore. reviewed  of  is  about  form  blocks  acre  per  88 five  the  point  per  persons  i n next  last  housing  two  or  between and  to  of  feature  However,  high-density the  to  i s around  towns  deal  linkage of  in  were  for  acre  for  1975).  high-density  will  Singapore  (Liu,  the  Density  satellite  ones  rise  slab  20  Calculated  ( L i u and  et  a  acre.  economy  p u b l i c housing  Average  per  (Liu,  As  and  unit,  13-storey  new  blocks  acre  and  later  dwelling  to  the  the  per  buiding  older  Density  145).  9-  the  1  for  p138  Most of  1960).  this  chapter. have  a  shortage,  public  creates  used  decades,  economic ensure  of  Despite  been  three  land  housing many  these i n Hong to  in  problems problems, Kong  and  successfully  development,  satisfactory  high-  and  progress  the in  A c c o r d i n g t o t h e HDB 1960 A n n u a l R e p o r t , t h e HDB r e v i s e d the the planning principles for p u b l i c h o u s i n g w h i c h h a d b e e n u s e d by the SIT. These r e v i s e d p r i n c i p l e s i n c l u d e d "the d e n s i t y in a l l t h e u n d e v e l o p e d n e i g h b o u r h o o d s h a d t o be s u b s t a n t i a l l y increased t o c a t e r f o r t h e i n c r e a s e o f p o p u l a t i o n . . . " ; and "economy i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n the l a y i n g out of housing estates".  81  housing  4.4  provision  Low D e s i g n  Kong  measures land  has  land  on  Second, and total  housing. Fifth,  Fourth, the  successful resource  needs  paying  design  section.  housing  to represent  analysis  i s  in  housing  to achieve  the  prospective  a balance  on  the  of land. general  Third, the  low-income  habits of the prospective of  both  deciding  in  in particular. by  this  standards f o r  availability  for  met  In  on  public  residents.  residents.  between  A  q u a l i t y and  constraints.  HONG K O N G . resettlement which  the constraints  and design  the  of those i n  r e s o u r c e s . The  be c o n s i d e r e d  available  ability  needs  the  should  First,  with  i s used  of  a r e t o be  the living  economic  previous  resources  public which  the  focus  resource  on t h e s c a l e  to deal  resource"  variables  low-income  housing  programs  in  standards.  the capital  Housing  substantial  economic  Five  design  for  need  The  between  housing.  the  housing  "economic  capital.  resources.  f o rPublic  discussed  t h e term  relationship  land  by t h e g o v e r n m e n t s  been  and  public  public  and Singapore used  section,  limited  Standards  Low-income Hong  with  were  1  The  housing  built  initial estates  between  design was v e r y  standard low. I n Mark  1954 a n d 1 9 6 1 , t h e s p a c e  'The m a i n s o u r c e s f o r t h i s d i s c u s s i o n P u b l i c H o u s i n g P r o g r a m i n Hong Kong Society (Drakakis-Smith, 1979).  for  the  I estates,  allowance  per  a r e : Housing Problems and (Fong, 1980); and High  82  person  was  counting square  feet  four  Hong  Kong  at that  and  corridor IV  own  are  provided  The  built  V  balcony.  the  per person. housing  contains  between  Mark  are  Another  of these  block,  built  o f t h e Mark  IV w i t h  allow  accommodation  of  design  and each accessed  balcony  1965 a n d  I I I with  I  1969,  standpipes, 4.3).  o f t h e Mark I I I  unit  (figure  the exception  a  that  d i f f e r e n c e i s that  16-story  between  buildings  different  i n 1970 u p g r a d e d  space  sizes  family  the space  per  h a s i t s own an  internal  4 . 5 ) . The Mark basic each  layout unit  has  two e l e v a t o r s (figure  1966 a n d 1 9 7 1 , was a  v a r i a b l e room  The  (figure 4.4).  by  had  was  containing  1964 a n d 1 9 6 7 . T h e feet,  space i n  back-to-back  (figure  same a s M a r k the  adults  estates 64  120  Therefore  i s a s e r v i c e core  in  Rooms  between  i n each  made  made  of a perimeter  version  modification  piece  t o 26 s q u a r e  private toilet.  Mark  blocks  was a b o u t  were  were  built  its  feet  space  and  to  living  washing  instead  similar  minimum  clothes  raised  estates,  legal  communal  which  tap  or three  s e x , two w a t e r  II blocks  a  adults,  f o r each  improvements  water  standard  five  resettlement  H-shaped  this  1o y e a r s o l d  toilets  Great  was  to  under  flush  f o r Mark  person  children  35 s q u a r e  and the c r o s s  design  estates,  was  the  These  communal an open  The supposed  time  of  rooms p e r f l o o r  with  had t o accommodate  children.  substandarded.  feet,  an a d u l t . A c c o r d i n g  unit  design  six  square  as half  and  the  24  4.6).  modified  incorporated  sizes.  A  allocation  to  further to  35  F PLAN M  Figure  4.3 - R e s e t t l e m e n t H o u s i n g  Source: W i l l ,  (1978).  PLAN  Figure  4.4  B M  - Resettlement Housing  Source: W i l l ,  i n Hong Kong: Mark I .  (1978).  i n Hong Kong: Mark I I  BATH  M  PLAN  F  M M  Figure  4.5 - R e s e t t l e m e n t  Source: W i l l ,  Housing  i n Hong Kong: Mark I I I  (1978).  III  ill  i  PLAN  III  Figure  4.6 - R e s e t t l e m e n t H o u s i n g  Source: W i l l ,  (1978).  i n Hong Kong: Mark I V .  85  square  meters  per  resettlement minimum  the  per  with feet  the  built  first  adult  time  in accordance  have  been  that  with  significantly  Authority Estates built with  showers.  per  was  the  the  legal  person.  self-contained,  toilets  It  were  standards  Housing  now  square  space  design  new  are  estates  living  The  person.  The  and  private  minimum  increasing  since  improved  1973.  balcony,  A l l units  kitchens  space  standard  to  square  50  in  and  i s set at  feet  in  35  latest  models.  HDB  SINGAPORE.  Looking  has  start  (Liu, to  had  et  a l , 1983).  the  maximum  government the  with  attain  (HDB  the a  able to were  pay" two  housing  based  of the  meet  the public  their  (HDB types  Annual of  Report,  housing  plans of  of  p r o v i d e d must  well  as  1960).  housing:  the  to  of  emergency  limits  of  units  group  State are there these  be  such  1960 one  standard  room  that  able  to  is  little  people  being  as  their  and  as  can,  realized  come w i t h i n  Between  the  decent  was  success, levels  of  housing  obtain a  built  policy  the  the  design"  were  income  It  years,  economic  blocks  lower  1960).  income  housing  public  i n the  degree  as  and  low-cost  Government,  average  needs  the  many  Report,  high  on  five  "to provide, within as  the  twenty  public  citizens  of  last  crude  early  Annual  sufficiently  and  to  that  the  "simple,  industrialisation  possibility raised  a  available,  assistance  housing"  "until  The  at  emphasizing  in order  the  from  density,  which  resources  possible  of  to  back  to  be  ability  1965, flats  there and  86  self-contained bathroom.  flats  of  two  to  three  A  high  p r o p o r t i o n of p u b l i c  this  period  were  t h e one  and  Sastry,  the each  for  p r o p o r t i o n of f o r 2-  provided  and  improved  flats  200  one-room,  with  greater  were  introduced  floor  Although design  the f i r s t  3-room  about  public  differently.  two-room space.  a s an  I f we  make  Singapore  in  differences  are quite  public 4.2  housing  and 4.3).  their  and  type  of  Kong  "low a  and  Singapore  way  to achieve  lower  The  than  were  housing 1965,  we  used  standards  of  a  goals  low for  interprated  Hong find  flats  4.7).  policy been  30%  introduced  have  between  these  and  five-room  has  standards,  Varma  After  (figure  and  significant.  public  flats  in  programs,  type  space.  respectively  comparison  housing  of  floor  standard"  built  (according to  f o r 1-room  three-room  1971  design  a r e much  40%  This  feet  efficient  the  as  k i t c h e n and  units  5-year  Four-room f l a t s  and  Hong  second  fixed  types).  i n 1968  housing,  was  and  with  housing  emergency type  sqaure  both  standard  room  rooms  Kong  and  that  the  Hong  Kong's  of Singapore's  (table  87  CORRIDOR  ACCESS  PUBLIC HOUSING 1-ROOM IMPROVED FLAT (FLAT SIZE 32.8 m?)  BALCONY  PUBLIC HOUSING 3 - ROOM IMPROVED (FLAT SIZE 68.6 m*)  FLAT  BAl WC  BA/ Wi  BEDROOM  MASTER BEDROOM  KITCHEN/ DINING  STORE "-"7  BEDROOM  LIVING ROOM  PUBLIC HOUSING 4-ROOM NEW FLAT (FLAT SIZE 92.6 m2)  PUBLIC HOUSING B-ROOM FLAT ( POINT BLOCK) (FLAT SIZE 120.7 m2) 10  SCALE  20  30  FEET  10 METRES  Figure  4.7  - T y p e s of P u b l i c  S o u r c e : L i u and Tan  (1979).  Housing  i n Sinagpore.  88  Table  4.2  Comparative F l a t Design Hong Kong a n d S i n g a p o r e  Hong Net dwelling unit size (sq.ft)  Singapore  380-1350  24-43  75-260  * communal t o i l e t  P r o v i s i o n of facilities  * *  and b a t h r o o m f o r Mark I-III. cooking mainly in access balconies in Mark I-VI self-contained for other types  L i u and Tan,  Table  Kong  120-215  Floor space (sq.ft-person)  Source:  Standards:  Hong * *  Vertical circulation  * *  for a l l types of public housing.  1979.  4.3 C o m p a r a t i v e B l o c k D e s i g n Hong Kong and S i n g a p o r e  Height and accessibility  * self-contained  Standards  Kong  for Flats:  Singapore  * Mainly  Mark I-III, 6-8 w i t h o u t lifts Mark I V - V I , 8-20 w i t h lifts  *  with Some  10-25 lifts 2-4 w i t h o u t  * 16-100-stairway * 40-100-lift  80-415-stairway 330-lift  Units  per  floor  60-135  4-32  Units  per  block  400-2150  M a i n l y 80-200; u p t o 700  Source:  It  L i u and Tan,  is  1979.  important  to  understand  the  reason  for  this  89  difference. programs terms  The  essential  i n Hong  of  Kong  measures,  they  indicator  of  population  i n Singapore  in  Hong  population third  A  impact  indicator  urban  areas  i s that  of  Hong  highly  whether  o r n o t Hong  design  standards  4.5 S p a t i a l  urban Hong in  areas Kong  terms  the  land  spatial has  this  use which space  expansion,  been  programs.  a  bases.  i s the fact  average  One  that  income  than  the that  Hong  Kong  greater  than  Singapore's.  faced  i s higher  in  a A  the  i t s geographical features  human  settlement.  and Singapore  of Public  development  growth  limited  and planning  i s  have an  Nevertheless,  set their  important  respective  issue  f o rthe  chapter.  h a s been  under  goals  in  that  because  appropriately  of economic  population on  Kong  Housing  housing  programs i n  achieved  i n the urban  Nevertheless,  two c i t y - s t a t e s  i s too great  t o be  of t h e main  urban  i n t h e form  complementary  i n t h e main  i n the use of l a n d , a t  has been  guideline.  i n these  of lands  f o r the public  Efficiency  value,  mainly  Program  or redevelopment  a policy  and Singapore.  developed  far  similarities  the population density  Kong  Expansion  Intensive  i s  the housing  economic  level  a higher  was  concentrated  i n next  policy  economic  indicator  although  many  on d i f f e r e n t  enjoys  which  caused  analysis  developed  second  have  background,  the different  Kong.  i s that  and Singapore  socio-economic were  reason  policy  o f new of  contained  Since  pressure within  the mid-1960s,  town  their  areas  continuous  has c r e a t e d  totally areas.  the  least  development,  public  housing  90  HONG KONG. decided within  to  development  from  expected 1986  3.94  have  t h e main  decanting also  population I  and of  redevelopment government, be  Mark  II  over of  these  that  0.15 m i l l i o n  have  t o be r e h o u s e d  drop  by  official  of  an  purpose  elsewhere  increased  per  was  i n t h e urban  about  population,  and  which A  was  lived  in  had  gross  plan  for  by  the  expected  I t was e s t i m a t e d people  would  of the redevelopment a r e a s was e x p e c t e d t o  1976-1986,  according to  by 1986, t o meet to  land  necessity  prepared  4,700 a c r e s o f new  be r e q u i r e d  as  exhausted,  areas  million  as the result  1971 a n d  d i s t r i c t s had  per acre  0.48  would  29% o f t h e t o t a l  acre.  estates  i n the decade  Altogether would  urban  f o r the redevelopment.  The p o p u l a t i o n  planning.  urban  estates  o f 960 p e r s o n s  between  environmental  i n t h e main  older  persons  of  i n 1986. The  nearly  i n 1974 a b o u t  persons  Kong  Territorie  been  i n some  and  out of the t o t a l  270,000  residential  i n t h e New  Resettlement  1,600  Kowloon.  t o accommodate  o f Hong  people  had not only  Pryor,  as a guide  1978).  1.7 m i l l i o n  housing  growth  pattern  1971 t o 5.69 m i l l i o n  social  and a density  used  (Pryor,  as a  a n d New  land  population  population  According  in public  densities  to  in  areas  finally  urban  spatial  developed  t o be accommodated urban  Kong  I t was e s t i m a t e d b y t h e C e n s u s a n d  the total  of roughly  considered  1981).  Mark  that  of overcrowded  been  (Sit,  increase.  Kowloon  the  f o r newly  Hong  of containing  Kong,  behind  million  addition  would  within  o f Hong  was t h e n e e d  Department  mid-1960s,  tradition  factor  population  Statics  the  the  space  obvious  further  about  abandon  the limited  The  rise  In  decant  people  land  for  t h e needs from  some  91  overcrowded  New  urban  land  districts  was  ( S i t , 1981).  also  development.  By  manufacturing  industry, according  be  about  acres end  of  of  1.78 land  1977,  urban  new  land  limited. acres  was  the  end  are:  Tsuen  Wan,  and  Yuen  Long  development  when  the  the  Executive  have  1.8 of  towns.  only  Sha  Tin,  Tuen  in  late~50s  of  these  this Wan  New  new  Mun,  Tai  The and  new  with  figure is  would  an  the  the  main  additional  ( S i t , 1981).  Sit,  the  to  amount  would  industrial,  be  very  and  145  accommodate  space  were Po,  the  for  the  growth  by  new  urban  being  but  the  the  was  three  new  impetus  to 1972,  approved plan  constructed  by  aimed  at  and  1.3  within  the  housing,  to  They Shui  in October  housing  public  expected  first  main  came  target  be  planned.  Fanling-Sheung  for  ten-year  people  3,600  ( S i t , 1981).  towns  housing  about  within  mainly  plans 60s,  would  1976  land  areas  towns  sources,  1986  to  provide  new  This  Town  for  Kong's  Thus,  after  provided  three  ten-year  target  to  urban  4.8).  Council.  Tsuen  be  six  million  according  i n Hong  s e c t o r . At  zoned  and  industrial  that  this  acres.  acres  and  1979,  land  available 300  main  for  1978  Therefore,  to  the  government's  providing  new  be  (figure  the  million  might to  suggested  900  areas,  force  government  provided  between  of  started  to  figure  urban  sustain  work  industrial  increase  outside  the  be  needed  that  population  was  of  residential.  development  towns  be  main  i n d u s t r y would  By  This to  to  total  approximately  I t amounted  for  expected  have  amount  would  Within  of  would  areas  the  million.  the  2,750 a c r e s  of  1986,  required  provide  for  an  92  ultimate  p o p u l a t i o n of n e a r l y a m i l l i o n  Town a n d Tuen Mun New Town million  (Fong,  1980).  are  each  The p l a n s  people,  to  house  f o r the l a s t  a n d Sha T i n New about  know t o t h e p u b l i c i n December,  initial  designated  target populations  128,500  respectively  Figure Source:  were 220,000,  4.8 - L o c a t i o n o f New Towns i n Hong Sit,  (1981).  Kong.  a  three of the s i x  new towns were made  ( S i t , 1981).  half  1979.  Their  170,000 and  93  SINGAPORE began program  in  regarding areas, key  the  either  the  Singapore. centre designed  of  have  30,000 of  hectares contained  (data  from H a r d o y ,  1979;  Source,  and  to  Varma and  - L o c a t i o n o f New  Hardoy,  existing  was  no  or a r e  Most of  (1979).  urban  doubt  being from  these  dwelling  e a c h . T h e s e new some 20  available  the  distance  40,000  data  the  towns.  built in  development  units  Towns i n  of  the  1979).  Singapore.  in  city  towns  are  for  an  covering  towns, t o g e t h e r  percent  Sastry,  built the  new  150,000 t o 200,000 p e r s o n s ,  communities,  4.9  been  town  i s no  urban a r e a  t a b l e 4.4).  rural  Figure  there  d e v e l o p m e n t o f new  and  population t o 600  i n the  in size  4.9  to c o n t a i n  300  land  towns  They v a r y  estimated area  of  the  new  (figure  new  l a n d need or the c a p a c i t y of  behind  Eleven  comprehensive  mid-1960s. Although  shortage  factor  its  an  with  population  94  Table  New  4.4  New  Towns  Towns  Projected  Queenstown Toa Payoh Telok Blangah Woodlands Bedok A n g Mo K i o Clement i Nee S o o n Hou Kang Jurong Tampines  Source:  It  is  on  Hong  and  population public  group  with  because i.e.  the  social  Later partly  such  from  City  In  Centre  areas  (km)  cases,  but does  not  important  concerning in  severe  developments  the  self-sufficient  of  the result  were  estates,  not  housing  provides  satisfy  years  of of  decentralized the low-income  their  housing  needs  of low-income housing,  are ignored.  towns.  the location  of a  transportation,  new  towns  in  much o f t h e r e d i s t r i b u t i o n  attributes  i n the e a r l y  were  new  housing  i s the result  public  town  development  cities,  public  than  o f t h e new  economic  both  Therefore  these  the impact  p a t t e r n of  and a c c e s s i b i l i t y ,  services  at  accommodate  most  problems  particularly  look  estates rather  shelter  location  various  to  towards  In  Distance  5-8 6-8 5-7 22-25 10-14 10-14 11-13 1 9-21 9-13 14-19 14-18  Singapore.  enterprises.  housing  economy.  to  the s p a t i a l  built  industrial  Popu.  1979.  important  development Kong  Singapore  150,000 190,000 70,000 290,000 225,000 245,000 120,000 200,000 120,000 160,000 230,000  Hardoy,  initially  in  Such  There  have  been  employment, problems  o f t h e new  and were  town p r o g r a m .  designed  to  establish  integrated  industrial  new  t o w n s . I n t h e newer  and  public  95  housing such  estates,  as  market  agencies, plans sites  still  towns,  well  in  problem  with  estabilished urban  of  provisions some  The  and  that from  some  of  form  Nevertheless,  is a  land in  that  the  for  the new  industry  early towns  i n the  main  most  city  of  the  centre.  are  the  The  1979, have jobs Thus,  become  the  an main  early in  the  i s argued  by  unlikely  to  without  Yeh,  1984). Kong  to  towns.  Board  sites  towns  p35).  for  the  i n Hong  also  have  development. new  the  towns  and  this  of  builds  comparatively  commercial  later  to  most  policies new  have  problems  new  Development  commercial  (Yeung,  not  in  are  the very  existence  (Fong  the  towns.  in Singapore  However,  to  and  i n the  ones  to  active  Housing  contained. remain  of  the  use  that  areas  of  doing  transportation. It  Singapore,  i n d u s t r y and  there  industries  and  does  the  factory  most  not  still  employment  light  are Wan  incentive  new  instance,  are  urban  lack  i n the  Tsuen  estates,  improvements,  towns  and  premises  Wan,  the  proximity  and  government  there  Tsuen  welfare  p r o v i s i o n of  despite  for  therefore  well-serviced industrial  some of  main  to  its  manufacturing the  But  facilities  social  and  industries  industrial and  new  infrastructure  the  history,  core,  development  decentralise  In  longer  five  of  of  community  adjacant  Kong,  industries.  its  or  include  Hong  exception  other  scholars  attract  In  industrial  areas.  stage  exist.  of  within  often  many  playgrounds,  development.  attracting because  there  schools,  estates  the  are  offices  industrial  problems new  post  these  for  only  places,  banks,  for  not  The  is  attracted proportion  higher  Therefore,  new  income towns  than  i t seems  increasingly  primary  cheap  selfearners  tend  to  96  serve  simply  local  jobs  as  taken  large  suburban  up  secondary  by  housing  estates with  income  earners  most  of  (Hardoy,  the 1979,  P81 ) .  Many commute  to  new  town  r e s i d e n t s i n Hong  the  main  urban  However,  this  provision  of  intensive  Because public town  of  housing  so  has  been  towns  of  (Yeh  choose  public  cheaper  and  and  Fong, takes  urban one  i n the  The which and  the  Again,  Because nine  remote  discussion planning  housing Hong  have  this  only  such  of  bridged  and  and  at  the  has  the  the  gap  to  with years  the  that to  housing  obtain  a  (Yeh  i s high,  unit  years  new  people  date  housing  four  to  in  the  obtain  Mun.  shown  public  policy  Singapore  moved  earlier  to  new  population  in order  public  of  fifteen  indicates  the  towns  total  for public  Tuen  with  new  last  1981  an  three  chapter  through  worries  the  the  towns  a  as  early  f i l l  and  new  get  to  located.  allievated  i n the  1971  demand to  design  programs Kong  the  have  are  associated  of  environment  towns  and  to  50%  the  jobs  the  Some e v i d e n c e  years  in  of  how  About  i t takes  new  was  Singapore  services.  situation  in  living  whereas  Singapore  public  to  most  partially  one  between  housing  1984).  areas,  actual  1984).  and  disadvantages  Kong  Kong  Fong,  been  towns,  encouraging.  better  eight  new  the  where  transportation  i n Hong  Hong  and  has  obvious  in the  However,  increase  it  the  development  people. or  problem  areas  Kong  us  housing  between goals  share  the  the  for  ways  i n Hong resources  the  similarities  in Kong for  programs. in  the  97  essential  measures  and  design.  in  the h i s t o r i c ,  of  the respective  is  seen  public  housing  and  chapter.  public  in  programs  housing  mean  been  economic  planning  similarities  and s o c i a l  backgrounds  The major  difference  the design  and that  for  by t h e  programs.  between  Hong Kong  have  economic,  housing gaps  the objectives  are explained  geographical,  of the d i f f e r e n t  differences  public  to achieve  similarities  i n t h e emormous  consequence housing  These  used  standards  i n Singapore, which  bases  d e v e l o p e d . What  on w h i c h do t h e  the  This  question  i s a  public  similarities  to the socio-economic effectiveness  programs?  of the  of  the  i s addressed i n the next  98  CHAPTER 5. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LOW-INCOME PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAMS IN HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE The p r e v i o u s analyses has shown Singapore's  low-income  public  developed under the guidance investment.  This  a  new  a l l of  been p a r t i c u l a r l y  and  programs rational  obvious  land  industrialisation.  major  component  the  Singapore  have  been  f o r housing  of  the  physical  i n Hong Kong  growth both  development. T h i s r o l e has and  has c r e a t e d of  which  Singapore  where  a shortages of housing were  constraints  An e f f o r t has been made to give  the dynamic r o l e of housing. Has the e f f o r t assess  and  which suggest that housing p l a y s a dynamic  population  urban  Hong Kong  r a t i o n a l views housing as a b a s i c human need,  r o l e i n the process of socio-economic  dramatic  both  housing  of  an economic a c t i v i t y , and a environment  that  been  on  f u l l play to fruitful?  To  low-income p u b l i c housing programs i n Hong Kong and  i t i s necessary  to  examine  the  socio-economic  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the programs. The  nature  of the housing problem  guides t h i s assessment.  i n developing countries  A s u c c e s s f u l p u b l i c housing program must  have the f o r c e to help change  societies,  social  environments  impact  the  through  its  d i s t r i b u t i o n of wealth and the settlements.  A  successful  on  spatial  public  improved  direct  housing  q u a l i t y of human e x i s t e n c e  economic  benefits  generated  physical  pattern  of the  organization  dynamic f o r c e that r a i s e s the p r o d u c t i v i t y the  and  program of  society  of  human  i s also a through  and, i n some cases, the  by  the  housing  sector.  99  Whether large  or  extent,  built,  The  and  or  for a  public  program  of  large  social  program  must  important  housing  housing be  shortage  s t o c k . To  of  i s , to  the  a  housing  standards,  services.  i s an  massive of  and  a f f o r d a b i l i t y of  imperative. has  people,  to  increase  of  a f f o r d a b i l i t y , design  housing  A  is successful  characteristics  scale,  public  program  a  scale  be  indicator  of  indicates  the  successful,  that  will  a  alleviate  shortage.  rent  another  i n the  its  failure.  housing  housing  accessibility  housing  The  public  reflected  scale  success  the  a  including  location,  need  not  to  who  be  A  successful  affordable  are  the  assumed  to  to  the  be  public  housing  low-income m a j o r i t y of  the  units  public the  beneficiaries  is  housing  low-income  of  government  assistance.  The public  physical housing  economic  poor  of  i s an the  successful their  location indicator  impact urban  services  a  of  of  living  the  low-income  important public  households  indicator  housing  of  the  socio-  program.  low-income  housing  conditions  rather  program than  in  It to  is help  simply  to  estates  is  them.  The  the  for improve  relocate  another  estates  effectiveness  essential the  conditions  of  the  and of  accessibility socio-economic  public  development. i s important  to  housing Proximity the  of  public  housing  effectiveness.  program to  low-income  on  the  represents  spatial  employment people's  It  pattern  and  survival.  social  100  For policy  both  objective  permanent, other that  such  Hong  respective  The on  Kong  be  the  solved  of  housing  problem  country  where  represented  by  i n the  programs  through  increasing  are  The Hong  amount  housing people,  and  sector or  of  stock  How  been  in  have  been  i s an  is  the And,  and  obvious  effective  implementing  important  overall  their  difficulties how  can  these  housing  the  to  because  for  low-income  groups.  Kong  is  the  purely  to  be  not  market avoided  housing  1980, than  population  housing  in the  two  (Fong,  public  shortage  subsidized  By  a  effectively  provided  more  In  low-income  the  the  impressive.  of  shortage.  are  housing  accommodated  percent  the  not  scale  reduce  provision,  public  i t alleviates  can  poor  demand. L a r g e  i t possible  of  responds  shortage  of  low-income  as  indicator  housing  the  40  achieve.  situation,  of  needs  Singapore  about  It  a  Programs  housing  overall  i n Hong  employment  afford.  approaches?  the  supply  make  designed  Kong  reducing  housing  to  f a m i l y has  Housing  housing  of  i t can  of  housing  future?  housing  the  government's  reach  time  What  Housing  of  the  housing  units  takes  the  eventually every  price  Singapore  Public  problem  the  or  goal  i n the  i n the in  the  rent  respective  Provision  improvement  that  home w i t h i n  measures?  their  Increase  because  a  and  policy  Impact  demand,  at  Singapore,  ensure  ambitious  in  problems  and  self-contained  an  involved  Kong  i s to  facilities  have  5.1  Hong  both public  million 1980).  In  101  Singapore,  by  accommodated  1983, 1.8  low-income  million  million  population. A  the  between  HDB  What housing answer  has on  by  squatter two  or  which an  been the  can  in be  case slum  of  and  residents  population only  Kong  of  5.6  in  Hong  squatters.  The  population  i n Hong  Although 1980 the a  was  very  initiation necessary  Hong  Kong  enormous  to  increase  difficulty  have  taken  and  of  the  indicator in  In  of  What of 13  areas,  population  was  the  total  number  of  1953,  the  increase  decades. 28  involved  Only  years  i f we can  was  the  we  we  see  keep  in  the and  percent  the  of  in  in  1980 to  be  squatter  squatters year  prior i t  possiblly in  the  realize pace  in to is  population  i n mind  in p r o v i d i n g housing  direct  squatters  program,  total  need  Therefore, have  of  housing in  last  estimated  that  public  i n the  while  decades.  scale  the  housing  change  which  in  slum-squatter  should  1953,  the  the  demand.  slums.  in  find  place  Singapore  decrease  us  We  three  that  i n the  can  and  is a  were  whole?  last  i t s large  three  by  in squatter  i n the  stress  built  units  program  shows  appears  close  to  5.1  Kong  i t  of  the  2.5  of  a  an  cities.  lived  of  table  i n the  population  Kong  the  percent  increase  represented  Singapore  75  significant  Kong  settlements  both  percent  that  housing  had  1983).  importance  effectively  squatter  a as  f u n c t i o n as  low-income  the  Hong  The  its  such  i n Hong  housing"-estates  380,000  group  changes  decades.  about  about  of  low-income  and  or  ( Singapore  impact  slums  not  on  the  of  1983  areas  effective  impact  and  the  lies  people  total  observing  three  concept  1960  public  in 120% the  with  102  the  population  proportional  Table  increase  decrease  5.1  and the great  of squatter  Squatter  Population  i n Hong  Total Population  Estimated Squatters  1950 1 953 1956 1959 1 964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1 971 1 972 1 973 1 974 1978 1 980  1,900,000 2,300,000 2,610,000 2,950,000 3,490,000 3,597,900 3,629,900 3,722,800 3,802,700 3,863,900 3,959,000 4.045,300 4,114,400 4,159,600 4,248,700 4,720,000 5,017,000  250,000 300,000 265,000 500,000 546,000 538,300 514,800 485,100 442,600 428,700 411,145 392,700 323,160 309,500 325,000 295,000 278,800  Fong,  There in  1980,  i s no  the population  very  likely  provision built  of  before  Low-Cost the  by  The half  which  residents  13.2 13.0 10.2 17.0 15.6 15.0 14.2 13.0 11.6 11.1 10.4 9.7 7.8 7.4 7.6 6.3 5.6  clearly  was  survey  oriented  with  the increase  units. Public and  t o slums  stock some  the  i n the housing  Government  contributed pressure  interviewed  i tis  residents.  t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong  of the s q u a t t e r s  change  Kong. However,  Authority  releaved by  indicates the  i n Hong  housing  i n the housing  sector 1968  public  the Housing  Scheme  increase  Kong  Percentage i n the Total Population  the f i g u r e has dropped  housing  tenements. over  of slum  low-income 1973  by t h e  p88.  information  Housing  overall  public  that  that  made  population.  Year  Sources:  achievement  lived  on Kong in  While  by  the  private showed private  103  tenements p90).  Perhaps  housing and  before  was  the  obtaining  Similar  a  the  of  million  quarter about  a  37%  in squatter areas  public  housing  slum  or  15%  of  put of  into  the  above  housing  made  a  They  are  poor  rather  population  as  population.  housing  i n the  observations  make  contribution  By  symbols  than  meeting  their  positive  impact  of  physical  environment  the  i n Hong  means  of  and  the  and  80s,  the  needs.  and  1959, and  one  the to  p53).  effort  (table  overall  housing  programs"  Singapore.  have stock.  which  concern  decrease  on  5.2).  low-income  Singapore  programs  No  proportion  the  slums  of  345,000  and  and  for  number  1979,  further  The  one  accounted  the  that  third  another  continuous  governmental  housing Kong  (Laquian,  Kong  areas  Singapore,  decreased  housing  real  squatter public  In  1970,  i t clear  to  "token  visible  in  residents,  of  they  dropped  Hong  be  living  70s  has  i n both  from  case  complete.  Altogether  residents  programs  resettlement  slum  in squatter areas  in public  slum  1980,  c o n s i d e r e d as  i n the  population  distinguished to  made  the  significant  intended  was  in Singapore  squatter clearance  The public  lived  total  the  than  residents  boom  s q u a t t e r s and  be  i s not  total  that  (Fong,  unit.  i n slums.  the  and  with  data  million  squatters  doubt,  move was  squatters rather  people  of  squatter huts  living  available  of  only  to  into  for this  o b s e r v a t i o n s can  though a  moved  reason  oriented  therefore  for  they  for  the  in  the  suggests  the  are  social  the and  1 04  Table  5.2  P u b l i c H o u s i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n and S q u a t t e r C l e a r a n c e i n S i n g a p o r e (1961 - 1978)  Year  Public  Housing (units)  1 961 1 962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1 967 1968 1969 1970 1 971 1 972 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1977-78  7,320 12,230 10,085 13,028 10,085 12,659 12,098 14,135 13,096 14,251 16,147 20,252 23,224 27,128 29,458 25,354  Sources:  HDB  5.2  and A f f o r d a b i l i t y  Rent  The its  social  that  In such  program  of  helping  who  have  rent  the p r i c e  the  Squatter Cleared (families) 294 817 1,181 3,643 6,510 6,018 5,984 5,865 6,519 6, 125 3,882 4,060 12,067 10,980 12,011 16,443  1961-1979.  of Public  of housing  orientation.  the poor.  housing  Report  affordability  countries for  Annual  Built  Housing  is critical  I t i s a common  the s o c i a l  the f i n a n c i a l  and a f f o r d a b i l i t y  a l lthe p u b l i c ability  determines  in developing is  too  of the  goal,  goes  the housing.  indicators  of  high  low-income  because  assistance  to afford  are important  i t  housing  impact  i s contrary to the p o l i c y poor,  as  situation  of the low-income  cases  Units  instead to  people  Therefore, success  or  failure.  The  rent  for  each  type  of p u b l i c  housing  i n Hong  Kong i s  105  shown  in table  which  is  units are  5.3.  the  built,  dominant  are  designed  normal that  1974  housing  for  unit  poverty  income  was  Cheap a  forceful  their  for  than the  normal  the  for a  much rent  for a the  was  HK$196  only  the  about  than  rent in  of  HK$300  the  public  of  rents  public  (table  as  resettlement  of  five-person  a  to  the  Chau,  in  was  US$710  per  month.  i n Hong  spacious  square  housing  unit  household the  annually,  Chau  1979).  i s seen  quietly  and  The  using  on  as from  convenient  1969).  again  for private  find  1974,  Kong  move  will  a  of  housing,  5.3).  20%  a l l  (Hopkins,  349  take  units  we  designated  of  total  housing,  expenditure  the  tenement  for a 1978  estates  of  housing  I f we  squatters to  o f t e n more  housing,  i n terms  these  on  housing  houshold  means  private  whereas  means  (according  were  for  lower  for  resettlement  types  within  of  households.  the  resettlement  other  Most  five-person household  which  the  resettlement  housing  expenditure  in persuading  percentage  generally are  within  the  public  rent  income"  point  of  indeed.  monthly  f o r the  homes,  work,  low  equivalent to  rent  type  for  five-person  was  "poverty  rents  household  the  earning  which  very  percentage  in  The  to  rents  20%  as  a  housing,  are  income-groups.  They  tenements.  1976,  feet of  393  was  In  HK$630,  square  feet  106  Table  5.3  Typical  Program & Year of C o m p l e t i o n  Type Former Resettlement Estates  I-II  50  1 37 169 200  29 35 43  43 52 63  176 221  39 52  55 71  238  60  83  O l d Type (1963-66)  171 204 232  48 54 73  70 81 93  New Type (1967-73)  234 299 375  67 84 11 1  1 03 1 42 1 79  1958-65  259 296 329  90 1 32 141  11 2 1 57 171  1966-73  304 329 393  1 22 1 43 174  1 38 171 196  1973-78  1 20 244 364 400  New Housing Authority Estates  Fong,  the  1-,  years,  the  (1964-66) (1966-69)  (1969-72)  (1972-74)  75 181 261 286  1980.  f o r the p u b l i c financial 2-  ($HK) 1978  32  Former Housing Author i t y Estates  within  Rent  171  VI  Rents  Kong  24 33 43  V  Source:  Monthly 1974  Size of F l a t (sq. f t . )  (1954-64)  i n Hong  14 19 24  IV  Former Government Low C o s t Housing Estates  Housing  86 120 1 52  III  the  Rents of P u b l i c  and  standard  housing  units  c a p a b i l i t y o f most  3-room rents  residential were  fixed  in  Singapore  intended  are  also  households.  units  built  i n the  a t S$20,  S$40,  and  For  early  S$60  per  107  month of  respectively,  the  1973,  family  p48). In  conservancy  income 1966,  charges  (equivalent  to  monthly  for a  S$40 By to  rent  comparison,  Compared for  with  public  in  monthly  much  countries lower  Table  than  5.4  Singapore Hong Kong Malaysia Phi 1ippines Thailand S r i Lanka  No  It reveals  HOUSING  doubt  of other  and Rental  period  and S$30  later,  higher  rent the  one  design  the  third.  up  five 1983).  standards  f o r low-income proportion  varies  of  housing average  significantly  f o r Hong  was  rents.  Kong  and  among  Singapore  countries.  i n S i x Asian  Countries,  1973  Average Monthly Rent (US$) 11.6-58.0 3.6-32.6 7.2-26.8 15.0-30.0 9.0-67.0 1.6- 8.4  ASIA'S MILLIONS,  e d . by Yeh  both  and Singapore  Kong  years  ( Singapore  124.2 90.8 40.0 20.8 20.0 8.5  Hong  (Yeung,  was  h a s gone  Equivalent Monthly Income (US$)  1490 1 090 480 250 240 102  unit  of only  has higher  GNP  and the f i g u r e s  Income  16  apartment  t h e income and  Per Capita GNP ( U S $ )  Country  Source:  Singapore  those  percent  service  housing  increase  16 y e a r s  capita  15  i n c l u s i v e of the charges,  and c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y  per  including  1983,  for private  Kong,  shows  to  In  t o about  income groups  public  HK$80), an  this  countries.  rent  different are  Hong  case  rent  one-room u n i t ,  during  5.4  s i x Asian  HK$60).  t o about  housing  Table  monthly  f o r a one-roomm  the rent  times  i n each  of the designated  the  about  (eqivalent  ten  equivalent  & Laquian,  1979  are distinquished  108  from  other  are  a  developing  consequence  affordable to  note  for  to  the  that,  public  groups,  they  may  in  more  that  afford  the  the  the  households 1980,  not 15%  design  income  Kong a  that  housing  estates mainly  great were  a  p r o p o r t i o n of  e q u i v a l e n t to  (Buchanan, it  was  for  1972,  found  those  1973). and  more  rents,  that  Although  the  p234).  earlier  poorest  which  in turn  a  and  HDB  50%  may  a that  of  the Fong,  occur from  made  in  higher  in  moving  have  if  these  month.  cases,  total  could  of  to  not  would  of  Kong  1967 to  been these  household  HDB too  rents income  conducted  in late  1960s,  expenditure"  ranked  first  change  have  suggests  assistance.  because  a  per  survey were  income-  instance,  20%  resulted  i n most  survey  reporting  means  rents  in housing  problem  a  private  15.3%  likely  residents  income  exceed  HK$400  more  For  rent  Authority,  1971  r e n t s have  the  20%  In  in  Buchanan,  because  Housing to  than  is  slum  situation  more  flexible  to  their  not  the  for  i n Hong  not  important  designated  poorest.  the  Fong,  higher  of  "change  the  the  by  between  residents'  1980s,  offer be  third  the  built  According  showed  to  units  problem  i t is  that  than  population  less  are  lower  total  earned  and  although  to  was  programs  Singapore,  affordable  housing  housing  However,  the  relative  one  and  (according to  Such  standards.  poor.  affordable  of  on  where  Kong  are  be  housing  pl07).  the  public  philanthropy"  is significantly  i n Hong  •Singapore,  Hong  units  expenditure  households'  "misplaced  m a j o r i t y of  housing  and  not  of  in both  housing  1971  c o u n t r i e s where  f o r the  been that  Design  worse  improved the  in  1970s  government  should  standards  lower  standard  public  housing  (Yeung,  could  results can  be  in  also lower  accessible  109  to  more  5.3  The on  low-income  Impact the  Scale  and  effect  housing  units  they  daily  or  to  have  basic  convenience. i s not  worse  than  Residents  meaningful  a  housing  any  programs  There  for  for  to  obtain  quality  i s no  relocation  safety,  in  e s t a t e s where  the or  the  residents, health,  always to  which  and  housing  squatter  benefit  process  squatters areas  the  the  i f  public  should  social  of  only  the  low-income  means  areas,  housing  indicators  conditions  For  solely  i n the  Housing  requirements  dilapidated  land be  a  the  low-  they  are  conditions are slums  which  as  they  lived.  the  kind  of  low-income  Singapore?  What  conditions,  f o r the  from  squatter  public the  adequate  the  in public  What from  provide  residents in a  or  the  public  low-income  consideration.  resettled bad  C o n d i t i o n s of  of  redevelop  income  Public  are  which  serious  Low-income  affordability  meet  life  program  the  Physical  social  i.e.  of  people.  has  the  low-income  planning  i n the  effects  of  are  diverse  the  two  environment  housing  been  estates?  housing  so  public  settlements  housing  physical  housing  In and  slum  last  planning  and  (Fong,  1980,  design?  in  The  of  answers  Kong  and  residential  were  relocated  the  low-income  we  have  Drakakis-Smith,  of  into  chapter,  What  Hong  who  areas  standards  city-states.  residents obtain  i n terms  households  design  the  programs  change,  and the  do  have  reviewed  low-income  public  been  social  to  1979,  the this  question  Grimes,  1976,  110  Liu,  1975)  achieve be  that an  i t seems  objective  considered  conditions  as  of  availability  of  discussion  must  backgrounds may  not  made  by  of  be  what  estates  alternatives, provided  by  In an  a  people  were  In  the  in  be  housing  as  housing  the  to  threats  evictions,  for  example  Research  Project,  60  percent  responded  stated  provided  by  an  the  improvement  Hong  indicates public  to  the  in  should  low-income  other  possible tenements  from  from the  the  natural  as  both  the  improvement the  fire.  apart  disaster 1980,  these  Mei  squatters  (Fong,  and  from  landslides,  Shek  move  sector  areas  came. B e f o r e  Hopkins of  demonstrate  squatter  their  housing  of who  was  had the  pl83). in  a  This  safety  importance  of  such  poor.  Overcrowding  is  Kong's  housing  public  the  the  Squatter  clearly  valid  desirable  the  estates  residents  Keith  finding  is  low-rental  faced  for  the  sector.  compared  security  a  assessment in  offered  and  socio-economic  What the  and  public  of  they  reason  the  are  by  important  that  those  conducted  that  stressesd in  may  residential  density,  Therefore,  housing  in  to  which  safety,  programs.  which  criteria  variables  change  conditions  proportion  and  the  residential  low-income  relocated,  three  survey  most  1969  the  explicit  rooted  housing  safety,  fires,  are  should  is possible.  private  large  typhoons,  public  use  people:  firmly  and  Kong,  improvement  which  It  i.e. squatter  the  Hong  There  low-income  be  the  to  i n d i c a t o r s of  services.  compariing  housing  view.  major the  necessary  usually  considered  program.  This  as is  the  worst  aspect  particularly  of true  111  for  the  resettlement  According in to  the  Drakakis-Smith Mark  outside  density areas  that  was  28  of  30  I,  II  these were  floor  III  square  per  feet  that  provided  only  significant.  However,  these  not  necessarily  resettlement result rise  of  rather  although  the  tenements more  their  than  in  a  very  type  of  in  p u b l i c housing  overcrowding  area  high  i s much  (table  use  situation  may  squatter  Fong,  of  be  a  of  lower  per  person  gap  more  sufficient  density  can  the be  through  standards. i s higher  does  in  areas  former  The  i s even  density  squatter  figure  resettlement  adult not  the  estates  1980).  a l l ,high  the  the  high-  Secondly,  in  private  In  fact,  the  private  percentage  of  households  sharing  others. was  than  the  where  distribution  In  close  Therefore, the  the  tenements.  estates  in  overall  the  housing  5.5).  The  estates,  with  higher  (Fong,  higher  in  depressing  corresponding  per  of  i n the  result  private  which  existent  land  A  of  1963.  planning  public housing  feet  First  of  According  types  observations  that  floor  unit, the  than  quarters  in this  square  resettlement  in  have  24  and  were  that  the  early  crowding.  the  average  living  sharing  mean  than  the  judgement.  efficient  unequal  tenements  a  estates  more  1972).  for various  and  lack  p54).  than  than  1954  estates  f o r p r i v a t e tenements  estates  making  and  1979,  higher  i s lower  p r i v a t e tenements  for  was  person  which  between  standard  (Dwyer,  between  basis  low  (Drakakis-Smith,  replaced  feet,  built  resettlement  estates  area  square  the  and  observers  of  average  estates  1971, to  the  two  corresponding sharing i t  resettlement  is  is  degree  families  of per  figure  found  almost  non-  likely  estates  i s much  that is  not  the as  1 12  serious  as  that  in  t h e many  tenements  where  their  living  quarters. Thirdly,  found  mostly  i n the resettlement estates built  1963  which  in  Hong  public the  Kong.  Table  not present  In f a c t ,  housing  figure  Type  does  for private  piped  houses. is  between  area  i s  1954  and  of public  housing  per person  f o rthe  a n d 1980s  i s  higher  than  5.5 Number o f H o u s e h o l d s Per L i v i n g Q u a r t e r by T y p e i n Hong Kong (1971)  Fong,  Very Some  generally  resettlement  No. o f Living Quarters  No. o f Households  Quarter  Households Per L i v i n g Quarter  185,632 249,256  135,589 125,211  1 .37 1 .99  1 06,295  103,894  1 .02  156,879 8,625 57,553 10,794 71,636 846,670  156,137 7,214 49,876 10,551 66,338 654,810  1 .00 1 .20 1 .15 1 .02 1 .08 1 .29  1980, p l 8 9 .  availability  water  measure.  i n 1970s  of overcrowding  picture  floor  share  tenements.  Private self-contained flats P r i v a t e tenements Non self-contained public housing units Self-contained public and a i d e d h o u s i n g House Simple stone s t r u c t u r e Other permanent h o u s i n g Temporary housing All types  The  t h e whole  the average  estates built  of L i v i n g  Source:  the situation  households  supply,  of p h y s i c a l toilet  amenities  and  kitchen  few s q u a t t e r h o u s e h o l d s o f them not  don't  even  provided  estates,  have  have  such  i s also water  utilities  such  electricity, an  supply  electricity,  i n squatter areas  household  as  and  (Fung, as  important in their sewerage 1978).  In  electricity  1 13  and  water  built the  after  some  of  i s  settlements  also  fires.  public  So  Yeung,  compared most  when  occupy,  and  h a s more  square  feet  kitchen,  the  more  the  than  after  as  in  i n the public can  In terms  insanitary  be  when  present  In  uses  of the t o t a l to  terms a l l HDB  of  the  flats  against  i s a summery  area,  schools, space  31.2  have  per  t o 66.4  provision  of  individual  f a c i l i t i e s . The p r o g r e s s measured  estates  land  Living  i n c r e a s e d from  where  t o modern  roads,  services.  are  generally  the  made  the t h e slum  in  areas  i s considerable  of a survey  the interviewee's positive  of r e s i d e n t i a l  from  regard in  of  According  estates  estates  colonies i n Singapore, 5.6  the danger  of the c i t y  devoted  having  nearly  and t o i l e t  1973, p 5 8 ) . T a b l e which  50 p e r c e n t  the squatter  housing  With  impact  relocated  improvement.  residential  relocation.  squatter  an  1973).  auxiliary  the  especially  housing  (Yeung,  is  of  of safety,  parts  public  land  the positive  conditions  congested  doubled,  conditions,  comparison  criteria,  i n the public  only  other  bathroom,  t h e HDB,  same  units  situation  bad the s i t u a t i o n  i s no d o u b t  moved,  infrastructure,  residential  by  obvious.  housing  of  person  physical  the  principles,  half  landscaping,  (Yeung,  on  on t h e a v e r a g e ,  other  t h e same  improvement  planning  how  housing  average  the  had s e r i o u s problems,  r e s i d e n t s have  town  and  more  the  an  The  largely  the d e n s i t i e s  with  represent  the  using  housing  households  to  A l lthe public  tenements.  Singapore, public  i s  i t i s not clear  of these  the  provided.  tenements  although  In  are  1973 a r e s e l f - c o n t a i n e d .  private  housing, in  supply  conditions in public  conducted  response  housing  to  units  1 14  with  their  past  Table  5.6  living  conditions.  P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n of the C o m p a r i s o n of the R e s i d e n t i a l C o n d i t i o n s in Public Housing E s t a t e s with Past R e s i d e n t i a l Conditions  No Variable  Change  Changes i n l i f e in general Changes i n p u b l i c secur i t y Change i n h e a l t h of h o u s e h o l d members Change i n c l e a n l i n e s s Change i n environment i n b r i n g i n g up kids  Source:  Yeung,  All Hong  the  Kong  housing  housing  condition. housing of  in  that  quality  been  criticized  Smith,  1979,  private  37.7%  55.9%  6.5%  28.9% 14.9%  66.8% 75.2%  4.3% 9.8%  25.8%  68.7%  5.5%  of  residential better  by and  indicate  are  cities  fair  caused a  many  number Morris,  writers  1978).  to  squatter  areas.  than  that  in  But,  the this i t  worse  the  public housing  Kong's  indeed.  residents field  a  a  necessary  i n Hong  is  the  that  in  i t is also  for  in  residents  low  both public  likely  say  very  in the  are  conditions  problems  of  is  their  are  in  better  it  quality. Nevertheless,  estates  the  tenements  offer  residential  in  no  Actually, private  that  conditions  than  i t i s perhaps  both  the  has  clearly  tenements  resettlement  low  11.8%  usually  Therefore,  self-contained  69.8%  estates.  adequate  out  the  proportion  sector  12.6%  comparisons  are  the  Changed f o r the Worse  (1973).  Singapore  in  considerable  point  above  and  Conditions  units  p73  estates  public  Changed f o r the Better  Name  and  to non  This has  (Drakakis-  important  that  1 15  critisism than  on  an  projects and  be  based  on  unrealistic  f o r the  implemented  housing  in Singapore  states  provided  and  economic  effects  The  word  location  and  because  to  of  closeness link  to  work  between  important failure  In financial  place  that  of  a  the  and  result Kong.  fact,  time  in  rather  Hong  been  Kong  planned  used  or  with  to  to  an  the  rents, public  are  both  to  the  low-income  major  housing  chapter  availability  reason  residence a  of  we  land  of  housing socio-  programs.  actual  important and  and  for their  determinant  The  social  always  place  physical location  social  survival  squatter dwellers almost  of  quality  positive  housing  employment  primary  urbanhousing  the  transportation. an  is critical  is a  The of  the  residential  improved  scale  includes  has  access  better  of  Estates  here  access  in  standards  programs.  with  Housing  design  Nevertheless, both  people  respective  i t i s often  last  higher  housing  housing  employment  slum  In  the  o l d e s t a t e s have  affordable  Public  i t determines  Proximity  do  together  their  mobility public  the  public  "location"  low-income  Surveys  of  the  low-income  generally  L o c a t i o n of  The  of  the  standard".  i n Hong  conditions,  programs  5.4  those  through  residential  conditions at  1968.  speaking,  than  environment  "design  since  conditions have  economic  c o n v e r s i o n of  Comparatively public  the  of of  of  effect  services. the  poor.  reveal  that  location. work the  is  success  The so or  program.  showed is a  major  that  the  physical  determinant  in  and  shaping  1 16  the  pattern  of  concentrated scattered of  the  inner  in  on  was  in  the  the  areas  Kong  The  bulk  suburban terms parts  has  areas,  of of  between city.  the the  In  places a  i t the  squatters.  Those  Housing  come,  being  higher the  of  has  work  by  was  Fung  than not  on  found  people  the  commuting moved  to  others so  offered,  much but  from  a  from  been  programs,  the  city. the  especially  in  moved  i n the  of  (Fung,  older  segregation  and  of  The  type  in  to  of  1978).  sites  program  in  the  home-work relocation  the  peripheral setting  i t s location  on  residence  process  the  Although  districts  within  remain  patterns  (Fung,  public  inner housing  of  the  to p e r i p h e r a l  relocation  the  of  centre  in considerable  places  70% in  1979).  foci,  is  was  clearance  has  still  squatter  that  city  shift  economic  resulted and  area  the  population  jobs,  1973,  in  housing  low-income  population  main  that  primarily  in  is  housing  (Yeung,  squatter  housing  public  floor  i n the  or  service  existing  commuting has  are  the  and  private  i t s attention  major  This  study  disrupted  moving  whilst  city.  built  result, a  of  noted  total  fires  private  whereas  districts  resettlement  commercial  separation,  more  a  created  of - the  the  also  values  Kong,  Pryor  area  outer  i t turned  As  fact,  of  squatter  land  5.1).  Hong  88%  Hong city,  floor  the  by  1950s  because  (Figure  In  government  available  after  fringe.  and  In  inner  gross  districts  initially  the  the  total  housing  made  development.  affected did  exibt  opposition  to  Resettlement 1978).  117  Figure  5.1  - Location  of P u b l i c  Source: Drakakis-Smith,  In  Singapore,  observed. launched  Large  latest in  a t lower  projects  similar  pattern  c o s t . Although  were c a r r i e d out  d e v e l o p m e n t s have been  employment  the  focus,  have t o s p e n d  housing  (1979).  scale construction  Hong Kong,  No  i n Hong Kong.  of  doubt  and  a long  central most time  a t one  area  in  have  be  been  land  were  t i m e a number o f  urban  satelite  Singapore  of p u b l i c  the  towns.  As  still  the  is  housing  estates  j o u r n e y t o work.  l o c a t i o n i s a major p r o b l e m  programs  t r a c t s of  self-contained  their  1960  can  i n more c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n s ,  residents on  development  programs s i n c e  i n t h e o u t l y i n g a r e a s where l a r g e  assembled renewal  a  Housing  i n both cases. F i r s t  f o r low-income  of a l l , t h e  root  public of  the  118  location  problem  growth  and  values  i n the  of  public  fringe,  economic  and  the  squatters'  The less  as  land  new  much  of  town  as are  by  (c)  (a)  67%  of  invest  the  central  In  behind  their  reasons  for  insufficient  space  accommodation  which  (Fung,  1978).  because  existing  economic  because  areas.  occurs  towards examining  cheaper  there  land  decentralization  main  answers  is  locate  in  to  previous  by  high  households  the  related  areas  the  districts.  that  a l l the  to  the  population  reasons  separation often  into of  tolerate  What  there  to  seek  tolerate  Singapore,  location  were  their  relocation  to  intention to  the  in  hesitant  home-work  commuting:  moving  moves  forces  low-income  found  measured  to  secondly,  from  i t is  i t  is  system. usually  Therefore,  as  a  the  consequence  of  development.  affected  and  the  resulting  in central  outlying  Theoretically,  and  was  as  i n the  profitable  problem  i t  rent  valuable  of  concerning  residential  Manufacturers more  move  overcrowding  expensive  and  districts.This  the  move,  constituted  expansion  development;  response  residential  urban  central  housing,  people's  and  is  most  moving  problem  a  change  of  of  ways  to job;  did  not  Therefore,  the  an  increased  (b)  t o change But  change  estates,  for  an  i n c r e a s e d commuting.  out.  can  three  react  housing  increased  effort  to  people  public  are  and most  individual level  residence;  i n both their few  Hong  jobs  people  common  of  Kong after  had  the  reaction  was  commuting.  the  government  low-income  public  make  to  housing?  alleviate There  have  the been  119  two  approaches.  housing more  One  estates  social  i s to offer  through  services  decentralizing  i n the public  approach  is  improving  the transportation  How seems  to  increase  significant  to  have  because  reluctant  to offer  of  industry.  the  policy  estates, homes,  to  absorb  or  areas.  Most  district  mentioned the  residents  systems  of  i n both  public  by  housing  to  have  been  made  been  i t has been in  nearer  their  work  As  to  work.  to  housing  households  in  i n the  has  and Singapore, have  some  provided  still  1979).  estates  get  have  in public  the  estates  to  jobs been  of  Kong  Kong a n d  industries  force  Hardoy,  Hong  approach  been  many o f rely  on  Fortunately,  i n the transportation  cities.  i t h a s t o be s t r e s s e d  associated  transportation problem.  4,  second  decentralization  although  has  labor  housing  1973;  the  to find  not enough  public  first  urban-states  light  income-earners  improvements  i n both  local  residents  that  (Yeung,  Nevertheless, problems  local  transportation  significant  i n both  the available  i n chapter  vehicular  to build  located  A  s o f a r i n Hong  for instance,  of the c h i e f  the  of the r e s i d e n t s  The  Singapore,  attract  peripherally central  l i m i t e d success  found  estates.  approaches?  to encourage  enable  i t h a s been  housing  incentives  o f t h e HDB  within  system.  the governments  In  jobs  i n d u s t r i e s and t o b u i l d  the a c c e s s i b i l i t y  are these  had only  Singapore  the residents  alone  Continuous  with  home-work  can not provide urban  that  there  segregation a  expansion  final  many  a n d r e l y i n g on  solution  aggravates  are  to  the  the problem of  120  home-work of  transportation.  and  Singapore  policy give  5.5  separation  to  the  An  low-income  indicators  housing  separately  to an  which  The  programs.  in  these  low-income  public  needs  effectively  represented  orientation  to  large  the  units  subsidized  people  i n the  government  the  of  interrelated  housing The to  low-income  housing  and  regulations  low-income low-income  assistance.  by  public groups  of to  low-income examine  of  each  of  consider  result  major  a  these their  planning  features.  i n both  cities  are  scale  provision  of  large  extent,  satisfied  the  people i n the  the  by  housing the  which  can  not  be  market  economy.  The  the  low  public  rents  controling  are  to  large  provision  ensured  planning  are  problems  programs  demand  extent the  a  Kong  in order  location  a  Hong  Singapore  and  be  cost  Low-Income  should to  the  employment.  effectiveness  ought  has,  by  the and  merits  quantity.  units  of  social  housing  public  towns  to  and  assessment  balances  of  Kong  that  i t i s necessary  the  housing  terms  of  quality  Whereas  afford  spatial  new  access  Effect  i n Hong  Public  not  necessary  i n the  easier  Social  understand  can  comprehensive  socio-economic  low-income  successful  a  the  overall  interrelation. process  residents  Programs  the  i t seems  more  affordability, of  programs,  a  poorest  opportunities  of  Housing  Scale,  housing  job  Assessment  the  Therefore,  pursue  create  Public  public  because  the  units. major  sector  f o r the  public  distribution As  a  is  of  result,  the  beneficiaries  of  121  Nevertheless, distribution Hong  Kong,  housing  the  and  living  was  for  poor  living  in  design so  that  According  to to  of  the  upper  both  poorest  of due  to  poor the  Singapore.  government  In clear  the  Singapore  public than  standards  in  resettlement  the  to  do  the  quality  the  some estates  of  built  before for  been  the the  the  Kong,  higher,  indications were  (Buchanan,  (Yeung,  problem  not  1972).  attracted  classes  the unit  Hong  Singapore  had  1973  mostly 1973).  that  the  benefits  of  public  likely  to  occur  necessity  for  more  been  made  Kong  and  households.  housing,  that  in  both  much  estates,  Kong  i t has Hong  better  settlements.  housing i n Hong  in  i s more  offers  squatter  public  some  have  public  discussion housing  been  from  dominant  with  have  two poor  housing  units  suggests  poorest  public  poor  problem  Kong  compared  housing  excluded  this  a  middle  the  The  In  public  first  opportunities  units  the  lower  situation  previous  conditions  housing  Singapore  be  rents,  This  of  and  as  have  public  and  may  assistance  terms  in  Kong  obtain  housing  of  1973,  lower,  Hong  the  public  by  i n Hong the  the for  built  There  poorest  Yeung,  Although  in  rents.  low-income  affordable  housing  the  conditions neglected.  to  public  in  the  groups.  low-income  were  Singapore,  for  the  squatters  whereas  tenement  l i m i t e d . In  been  the  people  private  regarding  low-income  that  residential  squatters,  standards  have  to  housing  problems  the  been  tenements  public  relocating  has  oriented  appalling  the  much more  the  was  been  within  problem  private of  have  benefits  major  the  in  proportion  and  of  program  decades  was  there  between  residential  Although  design  particularly 1954  and  the 1963  122  are  very  the  low  low,  rent,  resettlement  To  criticism  and  have  i n these  can  afford  the p u b l i c  made a two  to  how  a  i n Hong  away,  the  located  land  to the  we  have  to  population  growth  than  Hong  change and  make a n  The  housing the  scale,  the  early  a  and  effort  nature  policy  in  urban  of  would  low-income  to find  public  of  public As  the  i t has built  such  been  further  resources. a p a t t e r n of  resulting  the public  be  from  housing  remember  that  dynamic  force  a  the d i s t r i b u t i o n  p a t t e r n of  development.  suggests  t o be  always  p a t t e r n of  industries  the  financial  should  such  of  scarce,  expansion  i t i s necessary  housing  the  households  separation.  that  should  i n case  to decentralize  and  housing  residents  public mind  spatial  Kong  It is difficult  no  projects  planning  socio-economic Singapore,  many  shortcoming  and  settlement  were  increasingly  of  to  people  home-work  in  i n Hong  Singapore.  housing  result  existing  human  further  Kong  of  Nevertheless, planners  government  blocks  noted  keep  a  wealth  have  limitation  i s more  to  and  public  development  programs.  of  low-income  low-income  i f there  becomes  few  tenements.  Kong  problem  f o r new  owing  However,  a s we  because  of  programs  contribution  private  for themselevs,  face  strategy  for  millions  Nevertheless,  centrally  significant  pay  programs  estates  the great  background  housing  urban-states  the  accommodation housing  consider  program.  poor  imagine  also  the socio-economic  conclude,  Singapore  should  In  distribution the  case  f o r the governemnts and  that  social  i t  of  of to  services.  contributes  to  123  socio-economic human and from  needs,  but  the  pattern  housing in  cleared  been  is  and  in  that,  Nevertheless,  each  an  more  analyses,  urban  construction the  and  studies.  of  economic  role  the  public  environment  seen  i n the  of  and  large  housing spatial  number  of  industrialisation  and  urban  and  new  benefits  impacts  Singapore.  both  public the  and  Hong  assessment  including  of  the  industries  information,  i s widely  and  housing  Singapore.  socio-economic  programs  consequent in  It public  Kong  housing  employment  material  available  environment  direct of  basic  Such  in  low-income  building  physical  development  other  environment,  limitation  further  the  the  satisfying  towns.  Kong  accurate  of  use,  the  Hong  through  physical  development  to  effectiveness detailed  dynamic  socio-economic  reinforced  by  partially  the  both  and  The  the  only  improving  cities  sector.  critical  development admitted  of  cities  not  through  changing  of  squatters  have  also  spatial pattern  programs  have  development  requires  pattern public  which,  should  be  of  land  housing owing  to  explored in  1 24  CHAPTER  6.1  Shanghai  In  this  housing city  chapter  and  socio-economic  metropolitan framework  of  comparable among the  the  most  perhaps  close  to  human  and  to  Kong  Hong  before  Kong  the  and  the  mind  per  for  f e a t u r e s of  Singapore: of  First  as  Hong  the  1  differences  in  urban-states.  and  all,  is  world.  a  economic city  Shanghai  measured  is  Secondly, by  for  China,  Kong  or  GNP  per  and  is  Singapore  in  comparable c o n d i t i o n s designing housing  Shanghai  People's  the  respects a  construction.  Shanghai  the  is  Shanghai  of  i n the  has  and  two  i s i n many  of  applied  social,  f o r p l a n n i n g and  ability  geographic  the  average  Shanghai  to  because  Shanghai,  capita  are  enormous  and  cities  the  public  China.  political,  Shanghai  than  resources  foundation  in  low-income  people  in  are  China  populated  GNP  centre  Singapore.  Thirdly,  and  million  of  of  the  Singapore  there  the  However,  technological  historic  these  higher  late-l960s.  as  that  productivity  i s much  well  seven  within  densely  economic  concerning  true  of  and  commercial  keep  China.  t o Hong  Kong  has  CONDITIONS  City  situation  unit  capita,  the  to  COMPARABLE  lessons  Hong  which  is certainly  is essential  FOR  the  of  industrial  It  LESSONS  Comparable  Shanghai,  largest  It  a  programs  of  the  as  6.  was  are a  also  of  6.98 1.97  the  comparable  semi-colonial  Republic  Statistics show t h a t i n 1985, S h a n g h a i h a d o f w h i c h t h e t o t a l number o f h o u s e h o l d s were M i n i s t r y of P u b l i c S e c u r i t y , 1986).  Fouthly,  as  China;  i t  city is  million people millions (The  1 25  also  an  reforms  international i n China,  planned  which  economies  governments,  port  make  city.  promote  and  Fifthly,  the co-existence of  increase  Shanghai  the current  more  the  market  autonomy  comparable  to  economic  of  Hong  and local  Kong  and  Singapore.  can  If  the  find  more  housing. 1960s,  of  comparable  both  Hong  actually  shortage  households) shortage been 1986  the urban  into  a n d May  o f ways.  existing  into  a housing  situation  i s  alleviated  1986).  First, units  households  generations.  households  housing  18,  It  to  through  i s  certain  i n the private  Second,  the  housing  family  a r e composed  for  that four  extent  tenements shortage  f a c e d by t h e c i t y  ties.  Agency,  in  News  i s  effort Agency,  having May  i s represented  similar  to Kong by  10, in a  subdivision  A high  five  providing  total  and i t s housing  of  p r o p o r t i o n of o r even  four  people  crowd  persons.  This  t e n o r more  shown  Shanghai  of i t s  of three  Hong  forced  i t i s  to  in  was  i n Shanghai,  25 p e r c e n t  shortage  housing  problem  i n the massive  n o t uncommon  intended  serious  despite a great  The h o u s i n g  of  the  News  (China  we  i n t h e 1950s a n d  Although  appropriately,  1980  shortage  population  obvious  (over  i t i s seen  observed  difficulty  since  i n Shanghai  unit  faced a  t o the China  a r e not housed  h a s n o t been  put  number  million  less  to housing,  the  that  s e t t l e m e n t s and slums.  According  that  i s  h a s shown  Singapore  i s visually  serious.  has a half  and  One  p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r  i n squatter  housing  i s narrowed  features.  discussion  Kong  and a h i g h  live  now  of the discussion  The p r e v i o u s  shortage, to  focus  the subdivision and the  housing  Singapore. the for  severe newly  1 26  formed  families.  themselves, houses  Many  a n d many  young  others  are available.  accommodation  single  i n these  more  room than  people shortage  colleges  i s also  seen  delaying  provided  This  cannot  the housing  collective  ten persons.  attending  are  Third,  collective  couples  or  shortage  for  because  i s seen  pre-married i s shared  of housing working.  i n the lack  housing f o r  marriage  residences  form  find  of services  by  two  A to  f o r young  the  such  i n the  people.  i s common  Fourth,  no  housing  as water and  sewage.  A  second  housing study  problem.  that  capacity, the  comparable It  was  the housing represented  development  feature  human  ( i i ) the s o c i a l  mobilized  resources;  the  economic  between per  capita,  between  ability  ( i i i ) the  of China  the  centrally  than  high  the national  resources  the  chapter  of  this  to:  (i)  economic  p o p u l a t i o n growth and and  utilising  distribution  spatial  of  the  p a t t e r n o f human  i n t h e 1950s  i s low, owing  and  1960s,  t o the mis-match  i s shown  resources. While average,  As a r e s u l t ,  i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  economic  of  by t h e  low  GNP  p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g  and other  planned.  nature  i n mobilizing  t h e two u r b a n - s t a t e s  capacity  of land  productivity  income  related  p o p u l a t i o n and r e s o u r c e s . T h i s  shortage  are  is  pattern of the  and  the  i n the f i r s t  by t h e match  of  Like  stated  problem  resources;  settlements.  concerns  for  higher  than  social  services  are  causes  problems  of underemployment  has  i t s wages a n d  Shanghai's  housing,  limited.  Shanghai  physical  Moreover,  investment  average  i n other  higher  cities,  household and  infrastructure, population  and a severe  land  i t s and  pressure shortage.  127  In  terms  of  the  Shanghai,  like  distribution the  social  the  housing  the  gap  gap  problem.  Kong of  i n the growing.  housing  settlement,  the  related in China  of  to  A  has  gap  second  the  such  of  which  as  housing Peking.  terms  of  population problem  the  1950s  1960s  and  rural-urban migration. It  natural sense  growth. that  as  a  less  the  the  that  the  third  the  between land  i n the  of  a  pressure  and  i s not  a  city  of  feature  of  socio-economic  gap  t o Hong has  both  pattern areas and  is  other  population rate  in  the than  Kong  from in  a  contributed there  Hong  is  Kong  groups  an and  in China,  social  in  and  seems  Shanghai.  socio-economic  development  a  come m o s t l y  commodity  of  through  is different  has  and  concentration  in  a  Nevertheless  market  i s seen  spatial  illegal,  Shanghai  the  is  birth  of  of  i n urban  high  is similar  legal  comparable  process  with  Shanghai  both  p o p u l a t i o n growth.  spatial  significant  Singapore, hand  to  in  result  The in  However,  difference  Singapore  population  immigration,  significantly essential  the  gap  faces  on  aspect  i n Shanghai  is  where  impact  One  the  that  Singapore  less  there  Shanghai of  equal  correspondingly  the  pressure and  result  more  is distributed  Consequently,  the  wealth,  i n wages. T h i s a s p e c t  c o n c e n t r a t i o n of to  and  exist.  aspect  In  of  a  relatively  does  wealth  conditions.  has  Singapore,  wealth a  distribution China,  difference  channells.  households'  and  However,  accessibility  the  parts  distribution  non-market  cities  Hong  i s seen  closely  p a t t e r n of  other  than  is currently  unequal  of  social  i s the  dynamic  development.  public  housing  development.  has  role In  of  Hong gone  Housing  is  housing Kong  and  hand  in  equally  128  important  to  Shanghai,  a  China's  modernization  critical  to  the  city.  political  The  existing  the be  on  there  housing  problem  to  neighbourhood (i)  " i f  thing  be  of  most  has  1,  their  for  These  experienced  53%  many  i s most  welfare  nature  urban  method  of  housing  is  of  a  the  total  the  housing  area  also  with  survey  This  to  in  great  of  well  Peking. in  a  the  first  sector next  for  step  the  housing  do of  first  should  be  second  question,  again  answers  (People's  Daily,  Housing, the  China  together  certainly  shortage.  may  be  f o r the  that,  As  potential  are as  and  such  by  Moreover,  the  caused  China  the the  non-market  corruption  aggravates  as  increasing  shown  people.  an  as  movements  incentives  people.  severe  questions:  "which  that  of  conducted  would  ( i i )  is  impact  in  two  demonstrate  material  have  the  revealed that,  the  need  Shanghai.  impact  survey  priority  important  of  an  what  in  efficiency  following  and  human  show  disastrous political  its distribution  of  a  answered  housing  resentment.  to  recent  for  answers  results,  consequence  of  role  is therefore a  such  Peking,  people  in mobilizing  of  a  results  and  survey  corresponding  result  of  basic  economic  people,  highest  Revolution,  importance  a  leading  development  city?";  The  issue;  1986).  Cultural  the  married  accounted  just  the  of  urgent  housing August  reforms?".  70%  and  i n c l u d e d the  the  should  economic  as  shortage  Daily,  Mayor  for  our  the  the  do  think  Shanghai  People's  to  you  question  on  were  f o r you  housing  a  information available  in Peking  you  Housing  stability  looking at  the  plays  socio-economic  i s no  p e r c e i v e d by  According  the  the  that  drive.  the  constraint Although  city  and  the  negative  economic  sector,  in creating  employment  129  and  benefits,  major has  and  component a  direct  planned  of  public  equally  important  of  while  the  development  and  of  for  of  effectively  and  housing  implications  jobs  smooth  consequently,  role  development,  of  are  i . e . the  to  in  are  for  housing  labour  a l l of  socio-economic  the  housing  serious  use,  of i t s  ownership  planned  the  is  extremely  opportunity  i t s growing  of  It  use  public  Well  i t s land  force,  which  will  development  China.  housing  Shanghai  constraints  provides  the  opportunity  faces various constraints.  similar  to  those  shortage  of  capital  Shanghai  shares  faced and  by  land  The  Hong  Kong  for  large  programs.  i s now  the  provide  dynamic  good  alleviate  pace  and  a  a  development  optimal  The  Well  made  land.  resources  housing.  and  housing  problem,  with  its  the  i s high.  fast  Singapore,  Kong  land  a  and  Hong  land  of  obvious  It  achieve  efficiency  most  scale  to  have  urban  a  development  socio-economic of  As  settlements.  Singapore  use  high  the  housing  the  a  city,  While  of  their  capita for  and  sectors.  housing  p a t t e r n of  Kong  to  Shanghai  Shanghai,  in  the  per  demand  can  achieve  result in  the  planning  shortage  i n Hong  economic  environment,  spatial  f o r Shanghai  provides  spatial  the  r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of  because  land  on  contribution  the  related  physical  housing  through  limited  the  impact  siginificant  land,  stimulating  clear  that  Singapore nature  cf  in  the  of  these  in regard the  housing  process  of  similarities  to  the  many  similarities  severity  problem,  and  development. f o r the  of  the  the  housing  dynamic  What  are  e x p l o r a t i o n of  with  role the  useful  130  lessons  6.2  for  Lessons  Hong  Shanghai?  of  Hong  The  success  Kong  and  Kong  of  the  Singapore  investment  which  sees  integrated  process  of  policy  and  housing  programs:  ensure to  an  give  because their  full the  planning  two  Singapore  they  in have  through  their  used  an  policy  be  defined  subsidies  equally  the  scale,  public  an  essential  should  the  housing  housing;  housing  and ( i i )  policy  the  for  First,  suggests  and  that  Shanghai.  Kong  public  and  housing  through  four  they  been  have  programs.  assistance  by  limited  Hong  rental  orientation  sector  constrained  in  housing  of  planning  accessibility measures.  housing  public  similarities  low  in  low-income  of  governments  social  and  use  for  two  are  important  public  standards  and  housing  reviewed  planning  directing  goals  are  their  efficient  low-income  design  There  c a p a c i t y , government  and  groups  inseparable part  f u n c t i o n s of  for  quality  programs,  have  needed  large  housing  they  dynamic  achieved  well  an  to  have  a  rational  resources  of  programs  new  and  guidelines,  financing  housing  policy  the  and  public  government  ensure  policy  as  Shanghai  for  these  distinctive  a  for  guidelines  previously  reasonable  active  to  on  housing  g u i d e l i n e s may  Under  with  i s based  economic  The  low-income  allocation  resources  should  resources. these  (i)  play  limited  Singapore  development.  planning  adequate  and  for  their  to  Second, public  low-income  distribution  regulations.  Third,  and  planning  to  bridge  for  public  physical  respective resource  potential  131  housing  programs.  housing  development  of  satellite  In  from  unproductive shortage.  the  been  has  1980  demonstrates  a  to  more  f a r as  despite  up  Lin, that  shortage, for  is  scholars  1984).  usually  to  of and  sell to the  a  have  l e s s o n s of  development  into  commercial  partially the  more  housing at  has  Ownership  In  units.  Program  to  alleviate  to  explore source  in  cities  prices. of  by  (Dai,  These  in  This  many 1984;  units  Hong  is  housing,  proposed  implemented  subsidized  concerned,  Shanghai.  invest  160  flats  situation  important  than  Agency,  in  in  been  of  investment  Shanghai  to  role  Singapore.  development  individuals sector  is  capital  for  late-  housing This  an  housing  News  and  persists  as  the  for  new  three  housing  dynamic  1986).  One  been  the  Kong  seen  since  investment Hong  for  serious  China  investment.  i s among  Home  to  housing  housing  individuals  of  increased  of  was  rational  18,  i t i s necessary  has  new  May  shortage  pace  a  changed  moved  housing  attract  Shanghai  and  sold  similar  pursuing  restricted  in  According  housing  s a v i n g s . To  build  in  the  housing  recognition  the  the  as  has  that  Agency,  housing  commercialization Chinese  the  was  resulted  in Shanghai  as  1970s,  see  the  that  sources  personal  to  News  speed  the  accepted.  serious  housing  active  p l a n n i n g and  situation  (China  However,  the  the  is learning  housing,  been  i n housing  T h i s has  on  households  Shanghai  to  i s encouraging  housing,  order  1950s  sector.  based  since  have  spatial  investment  investment,  330,000  through  However,  It  they  towns.  Shanghai,  decades  1970s.  Fourth,  China are  measure  Kong  and  132  Singapore, states  f o r the  raising of  which  who  able  interest  bonds  been  a  decade.  major This  trend  by  to  i t . There  pay  to  for  raise  which  utilizing  housing  carry  is  the  have  capital  been  interest  accounts,  two  urban-  efficient  investment.  higher  for fixed-term savings  in these  approach  in housing  i n Shanghai  financial  to  last  investment  those  applied  has  in  resources  other  measures  These  include  than  and  a  to  learn  the  lottery  usual linked  housing.  To  this  point,  concerning  the  Hong  and  Kong  Shanghai public  i t  social  be  housing  and are  than  actual  costs.  less  rents.  These  built  by  real  costs.  housing  the  The 5  than  They are  usually  income  limits  housing housing  the  shortage based  government  on  and  in  public  the  sold  at  mainly  by  the  is  housing  decision to  the  are  closer  to  that  These the  there  are  regulate  the  The  overall  welfare  together those  units  although  to  for  through  market.  units. of  lower  income  housing  designated  housing  going  public  public  subsidized,  Shanghai  in  significant  prices  by  welfare  distributed  distribution  housing  built  households  are  cases,  provided  groups:  welfare  are  lessons,  Welfare  are  and  administrative  subsidised  two  their  specifically  the  into  commercialized  problem  welfare  housing  The  i n most  The  of  of  distributed  also,  the  that of  the  housing,  housing.  rents  units  are  vary.  distribution  at  percent  sector,  subsidies no  roughly  residents  channells.  public  units  rented  housing  administrative  public  commercialized  units  pay  of  Currently,  categorized  housing  usually  important  orientation  Singapore.  can  the  is  who  public  result  in  have  the  133  influence  to  obtain  the  commercialized  housing  households  afford  social Hong  can  orientation  Kong,  public  percentage built use  by  of  welfare  avoids i t . It  of  housing  private  as  the  public  to  households  housing  sector,  housing  units  residents. housing for  to  housing  are  Such sector,  alleviate  great  progress  1970s  The  and  the  and  in  lessons.  I t was  obtain  more  as  the  a  the  the  that  i t may  mortgage can  more  shortage. the  be  the  the  This  world,  housing  of  for  the  attract  housing  whole  prospective  commercialized  for more  units  financial  The  public  effective  system  and  of  in the  housing. the  to the  increase  chance  income  an  high  housing  commercialized  of  In  f o r Shanghai  affordable  household  measure  public  the  gradually commercializes  result  throughout of  access  people,  a  afford  reduce  the  clarified.  distribution  ensure  accessibility  financial  approach  purchasing funds  can  to  be  built  has  been  i s associated with  the  i n Hong  Kong  measure  the  and  Singapore  in  1980s.  spatial  programs  to  to  i t i s wise  not  s u b s i d i e s to  geared  housing  applied  to  establish a  widely  the  the  enhance  to  does  Shanghai  low-income  Shanghai  housing.  to  To  and  housing  be  that  accommodate  the  Although  c o r r u p t i o n , not a l l important  able  Perhaps  provided.  housing  to  not  units,  lower  i s that  are  for  public  alternative  of  criteria  commercialized  of  therefore  built  sector.  units  problem  kind  is  housing  income  is  that  major  housing  the  each  households  the  income  limited  planning  Hong a  Kong  for and  necessary  land  the  Singapore  step  resources  low-income  f o r Hong for  also Kong  low-income  public provides and  housing useful  Singapore  public  to  housing  134  programs  through  Nevertheless,  shortage  a  Shanghai  encouraging  sign  However, towns  of  because  Shanghai of  gaps  commercial towns.  It  order  to  It  physical  Kong  and  housing  low  rents  shortage units  are  and  successful  by  the  these  economic This  Singapore  for  public  i n Shanghai needed  to  to  with  clearly achieve  housing.  indicates satisfy  the  that  the  policy  The  great  housing  towns.  housing  i s that  the  of  efforts  production  number  needs;  towns  lessons  of  The  in  understand  goals  severity  and  satellite  satellite  planning  scale  life,  reduced  public  in  hand.  residents  the  be  that  satellite  social and  is  in  its  satellite  shown  a  to  the  Singapore.  the  valuable  the  in  hand  f o r the  large  and  planners  for physical  resources is  the  provides  guideline  of  that  design  also  that  that  areas  development  and  i s important  g a p s must  r e s i d e n t s of  planning  and  quality,  central  that  planning  going  attractive  the  of  i n Shanghai  suggesting  education  between  basic  program.  Kong  to  Singapore  The  Hong  not  land  Kong  planning are  home-work  encountered  i n Hong  i s t h e r e f o r e important  faced  limited  towns  spatial  still  It  without  the  also  problems  evidence  emphasized  The  Shanghai. links  are  achieve  the  in  Because  is  towns.  development  in regard  should  problems  Hong  the  been  services  Shanghai.  the  of  have  Singapore.  towns.  housing  resulted  Shanghai  satellite  industrial  there  and  satellite  low-income  satellite avoid  of  has  areas,  t r y to the  and  Kong  of  of  housing  in  Hong  urban  should  of  industry  number  development One  of  i n both  i n the  building  -development  decentralization  decentralization separation  the  in for i t the by and  the  housing  of  housing  low  income  of  135  the  majority  prices  must  It under  be  until  past  higher  5  years,  in  not  housing.  Hong  standards  for  public  Hong  and  Singapore  Kong  measure  used  income  public  shortage,  by  Hong  scale  of  living  space.  It  economically.  the  lowest  in  the  low-income  seems  the  and  The  rents  or  for housing  be  by  above  It  housing  the  than  capita and  necessary  discussion  capita  Agency,  discussion  goals  policy  urgent that  more  the  i n c r e a s e of  land  the area  land  i n Hong  shortage  f o r Shanghai  the  shown  to  and to  for  low-  housing on  per  the  capita  resources  for China  Kong  basic  emphasis  land  explore  a  of  put  the  between  been  situation  much 1986).  in  the  that  living  is  significantly  high-density  has  In  has  on  to  alleviated.  households  current  the  low  which  News  in contributing  programs  and  of  maintain  standards  should  is valuable  high-rise  metres,  vary  achieve  to  is  previous  low  high-density  increasingly  development  that  i t s per  (China  important  world,  raised  the  Under  per  i t i s wise  number  from  rather  The  i n Shanghai.  high-rise  the  to  standards  square  Kong  i n Shanghai  is also  used  6  and  Kong  production  of  indicates  shortage  has  housing  housing.  planners  perhaps  to  know  the  housing  reduced We  that  Shanghai  metres  that  i t has  of  severe  households  and  overall  square  than  However,  control, the  five  from  need  Chinese  low.  government  space  the  i s t h e r e f o r e important  standards the  of  be  i s amongst  is  especially  significance the  success  Singapore. accommodate  of It  more  housing.  that  the  cities  with  136  comparable  conditions  low-income Shanghai may  not  that own  public is  be  such  housing  only  valid  can  one  facts  of  learning  be  low-income  rather  comprehensiveness  programs these  for others.  s i t u a t i o n . However,  success  of  learn  than are  i t is public  both  useful  i n Hong  cities,  based  on  essential housing  single important.  lessons  Kong  and  It therefore  expanded  a  many  the  needs each to  and  to  be  for i t  emphsized  comparable realize of  the  Singapore.  analysis  i s composed one.  from  city's  that a  number  Flexibility  the of and  1 37  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A b r a m s , C h a r l e s . Man's S t r u g g l e f o r S h e l t e r W o r l d . C a m b r i d g e : M.I.T. P r e s s , 1964.  i n an  Urbanizing  A n g e l , S. a n d S. B e n j a m i n . " S e v e n t e e n R e a s o n s Why T h e S q u a t t e r P r o b l e m C a n ' t Be S o l v e d . " E k i s t i c s , V o l . 4 1 , N o . 2 4 2 , 1 9 7 6 . C a s a n o v a , R., T a n S o o H a i , C.K. L e o n g , a n d S.H. S o e p a n g k a t . "Land P o l i c i e s and P r a c t i c e s . " H o u s i n g A s i a ' s Millions. Ed. S.H.K. Y e h a n d A . A . L a q u i a n . O t t a w a : I D R C , 1 9 7 9 , pp 101-114. C a s t e l l s , M a n u a l . The Shek K i p M e i Syndrome: P u b l i c H o u s i n g and E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t i n Hong Kong. W o r k i n g P a p e r 15. C e n t r e o f Urban S t u d i e s and Urban P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of Hong Kong, 1986. C h a n , J a m e s . "Hong K o n g . " 1982, X 2 2 1 - 2 2 3 .  Academic  American  Encyclopedia.  Chau, L . L . C . "The S i z e a n d P r o f i l e o f P o v e r t y i n Hong Kong." Hong Kong: Dilemmas o f G r o w t h . E d . L e u n g C h i - k e u n g , JW C u s h m a n , a n d Wang G u n g w u . R e s e a r c h S c h o o l o f P a c i f i c S t u d i e s , A u s t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y and the Centre of A s i a n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong, 1980, p p 495-527. Chen, P e t e r S . J . S i n g a p o r e Development Singapore: Oxford University Press,  Policies 1983.  Choe, A l a n F.C. "Urban Renewal." P u b l i c Ed. S.H.K. Y e h . S i n g a p o r e : S i n g a p o r e pp 97-116.  and Trends.  Housing i n Singapore. U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975,  C h u a , Wee M e n g a n d Ho K o o n N g i a p . " F i n a n c i n g P u b l i c H o u s i n g . " P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e . E d . S.H.K. Y e h . S i n g a p o r e : S i n g a p o r e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975, pp 58-80. Correa, C M . Ekistics,  " T h i r d World Housing: Space No.242, 1976.  as a Resource."  D a i , N i a n c h i . "The H o u s i n g P r o b l e m s F a c i n g C h i n a . " A r c h i t e c t u r e J o u r n a l . P e k i n g : C h i n e s e A s s o c i a t i o n o f A r c h i t e c t s , 1984. D o u g l a s , M c C a l l u m a n d S t a n B e n j a m i n . "Low C o s t U r b a n H o u s i n g in T h i r d World: Broadening t h e Economic P e r s p e c t i v e . " U r b a n S t u d i e s . A u g u s t , 1985. D r a k a k i s - S m i t h , D.W. U r b a n i s a t i o n , H o u s i n g a n d t h e D e v e l o p m e n t P r o c e s s . London: Croom Helm, 1981.  138  D r a k a k i s - S m i t h , D.W. H i g h S o c i e t y : H o u s i n g P r o v i s i o n I n M e t r o p o l i t a n Hong K o n g . Hong K o n g : C e n t r e o f A s i a n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong, 1979. D r a k a k i s - S m i t h , D.W. "Low-Cost H o u s i n g P r o v i s i o n i n t h e T h i r d W o r l d : Some T h e o r e t i c a l a n d P r a c t i c a l A l t e r n a t i v e s . " H o u s i n g i n T h i r d W o r l d C o u n t r i e s . E d . H.S. M u r i s o n a n d J . P . L e a . The M a c M i l l a n P r e s s L t d . , 1979, p p 22-30. D r a k a k i s - S m i t h , D.W. a n d Y.M. Y e u n g . P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n t h e C i t y - S t a t e s o f Hong Kong a n d S i n g a p o r e . O c c a s i o n a l P a p e r , No.8. C a n b e r r a : D e v e l o p m e n t S t u d i e s C e n t r e , A u s t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. D r a k a k i s - S m i t h D.W. H o u s i n g P r o v i s i o n I n M e t r o p o l i t a n H o n g K o n g . Hong Kong: C e n t r e o f A s i a n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong, 1973. Dwyer, D . J . P e o p l e a n d H o u s i n g i n T h i r d L o n d o n a n d New Y o r k : L o n g m a n , 1 9 7 5 .  World  Cities.  Dwyer, D . J . ( e d . ) . Hong Kong: Hong  The C i t y a s a C e n t r e o f Change Kong U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973.  Dwyer, D . J . ( e d . ) . P a r a g o n , 1972.  Asian  Urbanization:  A Hong  Kong  in Asia.  Casebook.  F o n g , P e t e r Kowk. H o u s i n g P o l i c y a n d P u b l i c H o u s i n g P r o g r a m i n H o n g K o n g . W o r k i n g P a p e r 19. C e n t r e o f U r b a n S t u d i e s a n d P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong, 1986. Fong, In  P e t e r Kowk. H o u s i n g P r o b l e m s H o n g K o n g . P h . D . T h e s i s . New  and P u b l i c Housing Program Y o r k U n i v e r s i t y , 1980.  F u n g , B.C.K. " S q u a t t e r R e l o c a t i o n a n d t h e P r o b l e m o f Home-Work S e p a r a t i o n . " H o u s i n g i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1978, pp 233-265. G a g l i a n o , F e l i x V. " S i n g a p o r e . " 1981, XXVI, 839-842. Gamer, R o b e r t Singapore.  E . The P o l i t i c s Ithaca: Cornell  Encyclopedia  Americana.  of Urban Development i n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981.  G i l b e r t , Alan and Gugler, Josef. C i t i e s , Development. Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press,  Poverty, and 1982.  G r i m e s , O r v i l l e F. H o u s i n g f o r Low-Income U r b a n F a m i l i e s : Economics and P o l i c y i n the Developing World. Baltimore and L o n d o n : The J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1976. H a d l a n d , B . J . " L a n d P o l i c i e s i n Hong K o n g . " H o u s i n g i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. H e i n e m a n n E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1978, p p 72-90.  139  H a n , D a n i e l W.T. " S o c i a l B a c k g r o u n d o f H o u s i n g i n H o n g K o n g . " H o u s i n g i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. H e i n e m a n n E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1978, p p 1-22. Hardoy, J o r g e E . and S a t t e r t h w a i t e , D a v i d . S h e l t e r Need and R e s p o n s e . W h i c h e s t e r , New Y o r k , T o r o n t o : J o h n W i l e y & S o n s , 1979. H a s s a n , R. F a m i l i e s P r e s s , 1977. H a s s a n , R. Density 1975.  "Social i n Hong  in Flats.  Singapore:  Singapore  and P s y c h o l o g i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s Kong a n d S i n g a p o r e . " E k i s t i c s .  Hong Kong H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y A n n u a l R e p o r t . H o n g K o n g : S. Y o u n g Government P r i n t e r . Hong Kong H o u s i n g A u t h o r i t y . The F i r s t Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1980.  University  of High No.235,  (1973 -  Two M i l l i o n .  1985).  Hong  Kong:  I n s t i t u t e o f H o u s i n g M a n a g e r s , Hong Kong B r a n c h . " H o u s i n g Management i n Hong K o n g " . H o u s i n g i n Hong K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong, H e i n e m a n n E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1 9 7 8 , pp 183-203. K a n , A n g e l a W.S. "A S t u d y o f N e i g h b o u r l y I n t e r a c t i o n i n P u b l i c H o u s i n g : The C a s e o f Hong Kong." H o u s i n g i n Hong Kong. E d . L . S . K . Wong. H e i n e m a n n E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1 9 7 8 , pp 160-182. King, M a r t i n and W i l l i a m L. P a r i s h . Urban L i f e i n Contemporary C h i n a . C h i c a g o , L o n d o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1984. K i n g , Y.C. a n d Ranee P.L. L e e . S o c i a l L i f e a n d D e v e l o p m e n t i n Hong K o n g . Hong K o n g : T h e C h i n e s e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981. L a i , D a v i d Chuen-Yan and Ping-Kuen A m e r i c a n a . 1981, X V I , 347-351. L a l k a k a , D. " U r b a n H o u s i n g V o l . 8 , No.1, 1984.  Y u . "Hong  i n China."  Habitat  Kong."  Encyclopedia  International.  L a q u i a n , A.A. " S q u a t t e r s a n d S l u m D w e l l e r s . " H o u s i n g A s i a ' s M i l l i o n s . E d . S.H.K. Y e h a n d A . A . L a q u i a n . O t t a w a : I D R C , 1979, p p 51-66. L a u , A. "The Hong Kong Economy - P r o b l e m s a n d P r o s p e c t s : A R e v i e w o f G o v e r n m e n t E c o n o m i c P o l i c i e s . " Hong K o n g : D i l e m m a s o f G r o w t h . E d . L e u n g C h i - K e u n g , J.W. C u s h m a n , a n d Wang G u n g w u . R e s e a r c h S c h o o l o f P a c i f i c Studies, A u s t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y and t h e Centre of A s i a n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong, 1980, pp 147-160.  1 40  L e e , Soo Ann. Australia,  Industrialization 1973.  in Singapore.  Longman  L e t h b r i d g e , D a v i d ( e d . ) . The B u s i n e s s E n v i r o n m e n t Hong Kong: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980.  i n Hong  Kong.  L e u n g , C.K. " U r b a n i z a t i o n a n d New Towns D e v e l o p m e n t . " Hong K o n g : D i l e m m a s o f G r o w t h . E d . L e u n g C h i - K e u n g , J.W. Cushman, and Wang G u n g w u . R e s e a r c h S c h o o l o f P a c i f i c S t u d i e s , A u s t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y and t h e C e n t r e of A s i a n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong K o n g , 1980, p p 2 8 9 - 3 0 8 . L e u n g , W.T. " H o n g K o n g ' s New Towns P r o g r a m s : A S o c i a l P e r s p e c t i v e . " Hong Kong: D i l e m m a s o f G r o w t h . E d . L e u n g C h i - K e u n g , J.W. C u s h m a n , a n d Wang G u n g w u . R e s e a r c h School of P a c i f i c S t u d i e s , A u s t r a l i a n N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y and t h e C e n t r e o f A s i a n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y Hong Kong, 1980, pp 374-396. L i n , Z h i c h u n . "GNP and H o u s i n g S t a n d a r d Journal. Peking: Chinese A s s o c i a t i o n L i n n , J o h a n n e s F. Press, 1983.  Cities  L i n n , J o h a n n e s . The C o u n t r i e s. World  in Developing  in China." Architecture of A r c h i t e c t s , 1984. World.  Oxford  University  Costs of U r b a n i z a t i o n i n Developing Bank R e p r i n t S e r i e s , No.227, 1982.  L i u , T h a i - k e r , L a u Woh C h e o n g , a n d in Singapore." A Place to Live. IDRC, 1983.  Loh Ed.  Choon Tong. Y.M. Yeung.  "New Towns Ottawa:  L i u , T h a i - K e r and Tan S i o e Ann. " P l a n n i n g and D e s i g n . " Housing A s i a ' s M i l l i o n s . E d . S.H.K. Y e h a n d A.A. Laquian. Ottawa: IDRC, 1979, p p 127-164. L i u , Thai-Ker. "Design f o r B e t t e r L i v i n g H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e . E d . S.H.K. Y e h . U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975, p p 117-184. Lu,  X i a n y u n . " R e s e a r c h on H o u s i n g Peking: Chinese A s s o c i a t i o n of  Conditions." Public Singapore: Singapore  Rents." A r c h i t e c t u r e Architects, 1984.  M c G e e , T e r r y G. U r b a n i z a t i o n P r o c e s s i n t h e L o n d o n : G. B e l l a n d S o n s L t d . , 1971. Meier, R i c h a r d . Urban Future W o r l d . New York, Toronto,  Third  Journal.  World.  Observed i n the Asian T h i r d O x f o r d : Pergamon P r e s s , 1980.  Mohan, R a k e s h . U r b a n E c o n o m i c and P l a n n i n g M o d e l s : A s s e s s i n g the P o t e n t i a l f o r C i t i e s i n Developing C o u n t r i e s . Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979.  141  M o r r i s , J.C. " A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Finance of P u b l i c Housing." H o u s i n g i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. H o n g K o n g , S i n g a p o r e : Heinemannn E d u c a t i o n a l Books ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1978, p p 55-71. Pang, Eng Fong a n d Khoo H s i a o P i . " P a t t e r n s o f I n d u s t r i a l Employment w i t h i n P u b l i c H o u s i n g E s t a t e s . " P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e . E d . S.H.K. Y e h . S i n g a p o r e : S i n g a p o r e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975, pp 240-261. P a n n e l l , C l i f t o n W. " L e s s L a n d f o r C h i n e s e F a r m e r s . " M a g a z i n e . V o l . 5 4 , No.6, 1982, p p 324-329.  Geography  P r y o r , E.G. " H o u s i n g Needs a n d R e l a t e d U r b a n - D e v e l o p m e n t P r o g r a m s a n d P r o c e s s i n Hong K o n g " . A P l a c e t o L i v e . E d . Y.M. Y e u n g . O t t a w a : I D R C , 1 9 8 3 . Pryor,  E.G. H o u s i n g  I n Hong  Kong. O x f o r d  University  P r e s s , 1983.  P r y o r , E . G . " R e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d New T o w n s i n H o n g K o n g . " i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. H e i n e m a n n E d u c a t i o n a l ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1978, p p 266-286.  Housing Books  Rusk, James. "Shanghai T e s t i n g G l o b e a n d M a i l , 1986.  Plan."  Ground  i n Home-Ownership  S i c a t , G.M. " H o u s i n g F i n a n c e . " H o u s i n g A s i a ' s M i l l i o n s , e d . S.H.K. Y e h a n d A . A . L a q u i a n . O t t a w a : I D R C , 1 9 7 9 , p p 8 l - l 0 0 . Singapore, Housing and Development Board. Annual (1960 - 1984). G o v e r n m e n t o f S i n g a p o r e .  Report.  S i n g a p o r e , M i n i s t r y o f C u l t u r e . S i n g a p o r e 1983. S i n g a p o r e : I n f o r m a t i o n D i v i s i o n , M i n i s t r y o f C u l t u r e , 1983. S i t , V i c t o r F.S. "Post-War P o p u l a t i o n and i t s S p a t i a l Dynamics." U r b a n Hong K o n g . E d . S i t , V i c t o r F . S . Summerson E a s t e r n P u b l i s h e r s L t d . , 1981, pp 2-25. S i t , V i c t o r F . S . "New T o w n s f o r t h e F u t u r e . " U r b a n H o n g K o n g . E d . S i t , V i c t o r F . S . Summerson E a s t e r n P u b l i s h e r L t d . , 1981, pp 142-159. Tan, T i a n Boon. " E s t a t e Management." P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e . E d . S.H.K. Y e h . S i n g a p o r e : S i n g a p o r e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975, p p l 8 5 - 2 1 3 . Tung, Fung. " P u b l i c Housing Towns." A P l a c e t o L i v e .  M a n a g e m e n t i n H o n g K o n g ' s New E d . Y.M. Y e u n g . O t t a w a : I D R C , 1 9 8 3 .  T u r n e r , A l a n The C i t i e s o f t h e Poor: S e t t l e m e n t P l a n n i n g i n D e v e l o p i n g C o u n t r i e s . New Y o r k : S t . M a r t i n ' s P r e s s , 1 9 8 0 . Turner, J.C. "Housing I s s u e s and t h e Standards E k i s t i c s , No.196, 1972.  Problems."  142  Ulack, R i c h a r d . "Singapore." Academic American 1982, X V I I , 319-322.  Encyclopedia.  V a r m a , R. a n d S a s t r y , N.N. J a p a n a n d S i n g a p o r e . H a b i t a t A s i a V . 3 . New D e l h i : C o n c e p t P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , 1 9 7 9 . W a l t e r , M.A. " T h e T e r r i t o r i a l a n d t h e S o c i a l : P e r s p e c t i v e s o n t h e L a c k o f Community i n H i g h - R i s e a n d H i g h - D e n s i t y L i v i n g i n S i n g a p o r e . " E k i s t i c s , No.270, 1978. Wan, T e h C h e a n g . " P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e : An O v e r v i e w . " P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e . E d . S.H.K Y e h . S i n g a p o r e : S i n g a p o r e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975, p p 1-21. W i l l , B.F. "Housing D e s i g n and C o n s t r u c t i o n i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. H e i n e m a n n ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1978, p p 9 1 - 1 2 7 .  Methods." Housing E d u c a t i o n a l Books  W i l l i a m s , B.V. a n d Y.K. Mok " R e d e v e l o p m e n t o f P u b l i c H o u s i n g E s t a t e s " . H o u s i n g i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. H e i n e m a n n E d u c a t i o n a l Books ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1978, p p 309-324. Wong, Kum P o h a n d S h a r o n H . L . Wong. "An E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s o f HDB C o n s t r u c t i o n A c t i v i t y . " P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e . E d . S.H.K. Y e h . S i n g a p o r e : S i n g a p o r e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 , pp 81-96. Wong, L u k e S.K. "An O v e r v i e w o f H o u s i n g P r o v i s i o n a n d H o u s i n g N e e d s i n H o n g K o n g . " H o u s i n g i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. Hong Kong, S i n g a p o r e : H e i n e m a n n E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s ( A s i a ) L t d . , 1978, pp 23-54. Wong, L u k e S.K. " S o c i o - E c o n o m i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f P u b l i c H o u s i n g P r o v i s i o n . " H o u s i n g i n H o n g K o n g . E d . L . S . K . Wong. Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s ( A s i a ) L t d , 1 978, pp 128-159. Wong, L u k e S.K. " T h e S q u a t t e r P r o b l e m . " H o u s i n g E d . L . S . K . Wong. H e i n e m a n n E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s 1978, p p 2 0 4 - 2 6 5 . Wu,  i n Hong Kong. (Asia) L t d . ,  Chung-Tong. " N a t i o n a l and R e g i o n a l Development S t r a t e g i e s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Housing P o l i c i e s . " Housing i n T h i r d World C o u n t r i e s . E d . H.S. M u r i s o n a n d J . P . L e a . T h e M a c M i l l a n L t d . , 1979, pp 36-42.  Y e h , A n t h o n y C a r - o n a n d H u a - q i Y u a n . S a t e l l i t e Town D e v e l o p m e n t i n C h i n a : P r o b l e m s a n d P r o s p e c t s . W o r k i n g P a p e r 18. C e n t r e of U r b a n S t u d i e s a n d P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong, 1986. Y e h , S.H.K. a n d A.A. L a q u i a n . " I n t r o d u c t i o n . " H o u s i n g M i l l i o n s . E d . S.H.K. Y e h a n d A . A . L a q u i a n . O t t a w a : 1979, p p 1 3 - 3 0 .  Asia's IDRC,  143  Y e h , S.H.K. " H o u s i n g C o n d i t i o n s a n d H o u s i n g N e e d s . " H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e . E d . S.H.K. Y e h . S i n g a p o r e : U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975, pp 22-57.  Public Singapore  Y e h , S.H.K. a n d T a n S o o L e e . " S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h L i v i n g C o n d i t i o n s . " P u b l i c H o u s i n g i n S i n g a p o r e , e d . S.H.K. Y e h . S i n g a p o r e : S i n g a p o r e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975, p p 214-239. Y e u n g , Y.M. " L o c a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g . " H o u s i n g A s i a ' s M i l l i o n s . E d . S.H.K. Y e h a n d A . A . L a q u i a n . O t t a w a : I D R C , 1 9 7 9 , pp115-126. Y e u n g , Y.M. N a t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t P o l i c y & U r b a n T r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n S i n g a p o r e . C h i c a g o : T h e U n i v e r s i t y Of C h i c a g o , D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y , 1973. Yu,  F u - L a i a n d L i S i - M i n g . "The W e l f a r e C o s t o f Hong Kong's P u b l i c H o u s i n g Program." Urban S t u d i e s . A p r i l , 1985.  Zong, Chengxun. " P r o p o s a l s f o r t h e S o l u t i o n s t o t h e H o u s i n g Problem i n China." A r c h i t e c t u r e J o u r n a l . Peking: Chinese A s s o c i a t i o n o f A r c h i t e c t s , 1984.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items